P. v. Soto
Filed 12/13/12 P. v. Soto CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CANUTO SOTO,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062444
(Super. Ct.
No. JCF28660)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, William D. Lehman, Judge. Affirmed.
Canuto Soto
was charged with possessing a controlled substance for the purpose of sale
(Health &. Saf. Code, § 11378) (count 1) and transportation of a
controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11379, subd. (a)) (count 2).
Count 1 also alleged Soto had a prior narcotics conviction. Soto pleaded no contest to count 2, and count
1 was dismissed. The trial court imposed
the upper term sentence of four years in county jail. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h).)
Soto
appeals, and his appellate counsel has asked this court to conduct an
independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436.
title="">[1] After reviewing the entire record, we identify
no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
James
Thompson is an officer with the El Centro Police Department. On April 3, 2012,
Thompson stopped Soto for some type of driving violation. Thompson searched Soto and his vehicle,
apparently because he was on probation in a federal drug case.
Soto had
cash and two clear plastic sandwich baggies in his pockets, one of which
contained a white crystal substance, and two packages containing a white
crystal substance were hidden in the vehicle.
Together, the packages weighed 46.7 grams. Thompson performed presumptive tests on the
packages and they were both positive for methamphetamine. Further, Soto's cell phone contained messages
asking "where [Soto] was or if [the callers] could stop by and pick up a
dime," and in Thompson's experience the term "dime" is street
lingo for approximately "200ths of a gram" of methamphetamine or
heroin that is sold for around $10.
DISCUSSION
Appellate
counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal,
but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by
436. Appellate counsel has not listed
any possible, but nor arguable, appellate issue under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738. We offered Soto the opportunity to
file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not responded.
Our review
of the entire record pursuant to
and Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. 738, has not disclosed any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Appellate counsel has competently represented
Rodriquez on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order
is affirmed.
McCONNELL,
P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
McDONALD, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] The trial court granted Soto's request for a certificate of
probable cause.
