P. v. Lawrence

Filed 6/18/08 P. v. Lawrence CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles D. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.

Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information alleging defendant committed the offenses of sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)[1]), possession for sale of cocaine base ( 11351.5), and possession of marijuana for sale ( 11359).[2] As to all offenses, the information alleged that defendant suffered three prior convictions within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (a), and nine convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Defendant pleaded no contest to violating section 11352, subdivision (a), and admitted the prior conviction allegations. Defendant was advised of and waived his constitutional rights to trial, to call and confront witnesses, and to remain silent. Defendant was advised of and acknowledged the consequences of his plea. The trial court agreed that defendant was entering an open plea with an indicated sentence of seven years. The prosecutor, in taking defendants plea advised defendant, Its my understanding you wish to enter a no contest plea to count 1, admit all the priors that are alleged and in exchange the court is going to strike both of those priors and sentence you to the mid-term on the 11352 plus one and sentence you only on one of the many 11370.2 priors for a total of seven years in the state prison to be served at 50 percent. [] Is that your understanding, sir? Defendant responded, Yes, sir.

The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for seven years consisting of the four-year middle term for defendants violation of section 11352, subdivision (a), and three years pursuant to section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The trial court imposed a $200 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b); a $200 suspended parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45; a $20 court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1); and a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee pursuant to section 11372.5. The trial court awarded defendant one day of actual custody credit. Defendant filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, defendants appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND[3]

On December 1, 2006, Long Beach Police Department Officer Shea Robertson used a civilian informant as part of a street narcotics investigation. Officer Robertson gave the informant four $5 bills and instructed the informant to attempt to purchase narcotics. The informant contacted Dixon and asked if Dixon could obtain for the informant a dove slang for $20 of narcotics. Dixon agreed to hook him up.

The informant accompanied Dixon to a hotel. Officer Robertson observed defendant standing on the hotels front porch. Dixon and defendant spoke, Dixon handed defendant something, and defendant walked inside the hotel. About a minute later, defendant returned and handed Dixon something. Dixon returned to the informant and pulled out an off-white rock-like substance. Dixon broke the off-white substance in two, held out both pieces and said, Look you get the big piece. Dixon then handed the informant the larger piece of the substance.

When the police contacted defendant, defendant was holding a large wad of United States currency including three of the $5 bills Officer Robertson had given to the informant. In a search of defendants hotel room, the police found unused small zip-lock style baggies, a paper bindle that contained a white substance that appeared to be cocaine, a plastic bindle that contained an off-white substance that appeared to be rock cocaine, and a zip-lock bag that appeared to contain marijuana. The parties stipulated, for purposes of the preliminary hearing only, that the substance that Dixon handed the informant was tested and, apparently, found to contain cocaine base.[4]

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 4, 2008, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not submit a brief or letter. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MOSK, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.

ARMSTRONG, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] All statutory citations are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.

[2] The count alleging a violation of section 11352, subdivision (a) also was alleged against Keilo Maurice Dixon.

[3] The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing.

[4] The stipulation addressed various contraband two items were tested and found to contain cocaine base, one item was tested and found to contain cocaine, and one item was tested and found to contain marijuana.