P. v. Serrano
Filed 4/29/08 P. v. Serrano CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ONOFRE SERRANO, Defendant and Appellant. | B194572 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA066869) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary J. Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed.
David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Onofre Serrano appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to selling/transporting/offering to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)) and his admission that he previously suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(d).) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court struck the prior strike conviction and placed appellant on formal probation for three years under certain terms and conditions, including that he serve 541 days in county jail with credit given for 541 days. Appellant requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that during the early morning hours of August 8, 2005, in Long Beach, appellant sold rock cocaine to a confidential informant.
On September 26, 2005, appellants Marsden[1]motion was heard and denied.
On October 26, 2005, appellants Faretta[2]motion was granted and appellant was granted pro per status.
Appellants motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 was denied.
Appellants Pitchess[3]motion was heard and granted in part.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On October 24, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Appellant was granted several extensions of time to file a response, the last being an extension of time to January 19, 2008, but no response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
[2]Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.
[3]Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
