P. v. Williams
Filed 5/1/08 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MICHAEL O'SHAY WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B202925 (Super. Ct. No. BA324965) (Los Angeles County) |
Michael O'Shay Williams appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and admission that he has suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b) (i); 1170.12, subds. (a) (d).)[1] Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant was sentenced to 32 months state prison and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5, subd. (a)), a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8), and ordered to submit to DNA testing ( 296).
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable cause which was denied by the trial court. ( 1237.5, subd. (a).) In the request for certificate of probable cause, appellant claimed that he did not receive a competency hearing, that he was not expressly advised of certain rights, and that that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
The probation report states that officers on bicycle patrol saw appellant standing on a sidewalk with a female codefendant. As the officers passed, appellant attempted to conceal a glass smoking pipe and rock cocaine inside the codefendant's blouse. The codefendant had more rock cocaine in her pocket.
The probation report also states that appellant has a history of assault, theft, and drug related offenses, was on parole for possession of narcotics when he committed the offense, and that appellant was ineligible for probation. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court dismissed five prior prison term enhancements ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On February 21, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
COFFEE, J.
David M. Horowitz, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Sylvia Whatley Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for 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]Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
