>P. v. Smith

















Filed 6/15/12 P. v. Smith CA5













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

>





California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.







IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.

F063182 (Super. Ct. No. F11901119) >OPINION

THE COURThref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Fresno
County. Don Penner, Judge.

Jean M.
Marinovich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney
General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-



On May 4,
2011, appellant, Willie Smith, pled no contest to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">possession of a firearm by a felon
(former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">^[1] (now § 29800, subd. (a)(1); Stats. 2010, ch. 711, § 6)) and
admitted a “strike” allegation, after the court stated an indicated sentence of
32 months.href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"
title="">^[2]
On June 3, 2011,
appellant requested that the court strike his strike. The court denied the request and imposed a
32-month prison term, consisting of the 16-month lower term on the instant
offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (§§ 667, subd.
(e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
Appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).

Appellant’s appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief
which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks that this court independently
review the record. (>People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Appellant has not responded to
this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.

The report
of the probation officer indicates the following: At approximately 9:27 p.m., on February 27,
2011, two officers on patrol saw a car parked with its running lights on. The officers decided to check on the welfare
of the car’s occupants. The officer who
was driving stopped the patrol vehicle, at which point appellant got out of the
car. The officers told appellant the
reasons for the contact, and appellant provided the officers with a California
Identification Card bearing his name.
The officers checked and determined appellant’s driver’s license was
suspended or revoked. Thereafter, the
officers walked to the driver’s side of the vehicle and, looking into the car,
saw a handgun in plain sight inside of the car.
The officers placed appellant under arrest. Subsequently, police also found appellant’s
cell phone in the car. They checked it
and found that appellant had received text messages indicating he had purchased
the gun. The gun was unloaded and,
because it had no firing pin, inoperable.
In 1995, appellant suffered a conviction of a felony in the commission
of which he personally used a firearm.

Following
independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.