P. v. Steinberg

Filed 2/5/09 P. v. Steinberg CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia Schnegg, Judge. Affirmed.

Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jeffrey Steinberg appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to unlawfully transporting or selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code,  11379, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Steinberg to the mid-term of three years in prison. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Facts.[1]

On September 13, 2007, Los Angeles Police Detective Vinh Do was working undercover in the narcotics enforcement detail at the Van Nuys Division. Do placed an advertisement on Craigs List inquiring if anyone had tina.[2] Do received a response from a man named Jeff. Do called the telephone number Jeff had given in his response and negotiated a deal. He was to purchase a teener, or 1/16 of an ounce of methamphetamine, for $125. The transaction was to take place in the area of Roscoe and Sepulveda Boulevards in the San Fernando Valley.

With two supervising officers monitoring his conversation, Do met Steinberg at the designated location. Do had placed $125 in prerecorded bills inside the fold of a magazine. Do showed Steinberg the money, then gave him the magazine. Steinberg then indicated that the drugs were in the coin return slot of a nearby public telephone. Do went to the telephone and retrieved the methamphetamine, which was packaged in a tiny Ziplock baggie.

Los Angeles Police Detective Jongkwan Kim was watching as Do purchased the narcotics from Steinberg. After Do made the purchase, Kim and other officers followed Steinberg as he went to a hotel just south of Roscoe. On his way, Steinberg stopped at a parked Honda sport utility vehicle (SUV) and engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand transaction with one of the two women in the vehicle. Steinberg gave to the woman the magazine with the currency folded inside. Steinberg then walked to a white Dodge truck, caused the lights to flick on and off, then entered Room No. 250 at the hotel. A short time later, the two women in the Honda SUV joined Steinberg at the hotel room.

After observing the hotel room for approximately one hour, Kim and other officers went to Room No. 250. Steinberg answered the door and the two women were standing in the room. One of the two women was standing outside the bathroom and Kim could hear the toilet tank filling. Steinberg and the two women were detained while officers conducted a search of the room. From under the bed, officers recovered additional Ziplock baggies containing what appeared to be methamphetamine, a scale and a cell phone. From the toilet, officers recovered at least one baggie which contained .36 net grams of a substance resembling methamphetamine. On top of the dresser was a hide-a-can[3]which contained five Ziplock baggies of a substance resembling methamphetamine. From a black wallet by the closet, which contained one of the two womens identification, officers found a crystalline substance. Also found in the room was some marijuana and several meth pipes.

It was Detective Kims opinion that Steinberg and the two women were engaged in the sale of narcotics. He based his opinion on the sale of narcotics to Do, the hand-to-hand transaction with one of the women, the quantity of narcotics found in the hotel room, and the currency recovered from Steinberg and one of the women.[4]

It was stipulated for purposes of the preliminary hearing only that the baggies and hide-a-can found in the hotel room contained 5.02 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine.

2. Procedural history.

Following the preliminary hearing, On October 30, 2007 an information was filed charging Steinberg with the sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)) (count one) and possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) (count three). It was further alleged that, within the previous five years, Steinberg had served a prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

At proceedings held on January 9, 2008, Steinberg waived his right to a court or jury trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, the right to use the subpoena power of the court to present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination, then pled no contest to the sale or transportation of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)). The trial court found that Steinberg had expressly, knowingly, understandingly, and intelligently waived [his] constitutional rights, that his plea had been voluntarily made and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The trial court then dismissed all remaining allegations and informed Steinberg that he was in violation of probation in a different matter, that probation would be revoked, and that he would be sentenced on the probation violation to a term concurrent to that imposed in the present case. Steinberg waived his right to a hearing on the matter and admitted he was in violation of probation.

The trial court sentenced Steinberg to the mid-term of three years in prison for his conviction of unlawfully transporting or selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)). The term was ordered to run concurrently to the mid-term of two years imposed for Steinbergs probation violation. Steinberg was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subds. (b)-(e)) and a stayed parole revocation restitution fine of $200 (Pen. Code, 1202.45). The court ordered Steinberg to pay a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, 1465.8, subd. (a)) and a $50 drug lab analysis fee and penalty assessment (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5). Steinberg was awarded presentence

custody credit for 112 days actually served and 56 days of good time/work time, or a total of 168 days.

On February 22, 2008, Steinberg filed a timely notice of appeal.

This court appointed counsel to represent Steinberg on appeal on June 20, 2008.

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record. By notice filed October 28, 2008, the clerk of this court advised Steinberg to submit within 30 days any contention, ground of appeal or argument he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Steinbergs counsel has complied fully with counsels responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J.

KITCHING, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1]The facts have been taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.

[2]Tina is street vernacular for methamphetamine.

[3]A hide-a-can is any item or aluminum can that looks just like a regular Pepsi or beer can, but contains a hidden compartment.

[4]One of the women had approximately $261 in cash.