P. v. Solano
Filed 4/28/08 P. v. Solano CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSVALDO SOLANO, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B199546 (Super. Ct. No. 2006042728) (Ventura County) |
Osvaldo Solano appeals from the judgment following his entry of a guilty plea to four counts of child abuse (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a)) and one count of manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.6, subd. (a)),[1] and his admission of allegations of excess weight ( 11379.8, subd. (a)(2)), manufacturing in a structure with children present ( 11379.7, subd. (a)), and a prior conviction of possessing methamphetamine for sale ( 11370.2, subd. (c), 11378; Pen. Code, 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)). The court dismissed a simultaneous possession of methylamine and phenyl‑2‑propanone with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine charge and a transportation of methamphetamine charge ( 11383, subd. (a), 11379, subd. (a)); struck appellant's prior conviction; and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. The sentence included a three-year low term for manufacturing methamphetamine ( 11379.6, subd. (a)), a consecutive five-year excess weight enhancement ( 11379.8, subd. (a)(2)); a consecutive two-year enhancement for manufacturing in a structure with children present ( 11379.7, subd. (a)); and four concurrent two-year terms for child abuse (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a)). We affirm.
In November 2006, appellant lived in Oxnard with his family, including four children under the age of 16. On November 9, law enforcement officers seized a scale, approximately $6,200 in cash, and more than nine pounds of methamphetamine from his garage, which also contained methamphetamine manufacturing materials and equipment.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On October 17, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. We have received no response from him.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Bruce A. Clark, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise stated.
