P. v. Vaught
Filed 4/21/06 P. v. Vaught CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KATRINA VAUGHT, Defendant and Appellant. | D047360 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD181054, SCD186628) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frank A. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.
In SCD181054, the People filed an information in March 2004, charging Katrina Vaught with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378)[1] and possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359). They also alleged she had a prior conviction of selling or transporting a controlled substance (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)) and a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). She was released from custody on bail. The court denied a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) and a discovery request for identity of a confidential informant.
On October 8, police found three syringes and .09 grams of methamphetamine in Vaught's residence. In SCD186628, the People filed an information charging Vaught with simple possession of methamphetamine. (§ 11377, subd. (a).)
On March 22, 2005, Vaught entered guilty pleas in SCD181054 to possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of marijuana for sale. She admitted a prior conviction of selling or transporting a controlled substance and a prior strike. The same day, in SCD186628, she entered a guilty plea to simple possession of methamphetamine and admitted committing the crime while released on bail. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b).) On June 15, the court granted Vaught's motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. The matters were set for trial to commence on August 5, and then trailed to August 9, August 18 and August 22. On August 22, trial commenced. After the People presented testimony and rested, Vaught's counsel sought a continuance, advising the court that a key defense witness who was in prison had been subpoenaed the previous week but could not be produced for approximately 30 days. The court denied the motion because counsel said they were ready when trial commenced. At a hearing with a sealed record, out of the presence of the jury, Vaught complained that she was depending on the missing witness who would testify that the drugs were his and that her counsel proceeded to trial although the witness was unavailable. The court told Vaught that the missing witness had told the police that the drugs were hers, and that the missing witness would be impeached by the prior statement if he now testified the drugs were his. Vaught told the court her attorney had never told her that and she wanted to relieve him as counsel and proceed in pro per. After the court discussed the difficulty she would face if she chose to do so, and the court told Vaught it would not accept a no contest plea, she entered guilty pleas to possession of methamphetamine for sale, possession of marijuana for sale, and simple possession of methamphetamine. She admitted a prior conviction of selling or transporting a controlled substance, admitted a prior strike, and admitted committing the crime charged in SCD186628 while released on bail in SCD181054. The court sentenced her to prison for six years: double the 16-month lower term for possessing methamphetamine for sale with a prior strike, a consecutive 16 months for simple possession of methamphetamine with a prior strike (double one-third the middle term), and two years for the simple possession of methamphetamine while released on bail in SCD181054. It imposed a concurrent term on the conviction of possessing marijuana for sale.[2] The court issued a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Vaught's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Vaught to prison rather than placing her on probation; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying Vaught's motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant and if this issue can be raised on appeal after she entered guilty pleas; (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Vaught's motion for a continuance during trial; (5) whether Vaught's trial counsel provided effective assistance; and (6) whether the trial court erred in denying Vaught's request to replace her counsel.
We granted Vaught permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Vaught on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] All statutory references are to the Health & Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Because Vaught entered guilty pleas, she cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
