P. v. Hackett

Filed 10/16/08 P. v. Hackett CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. W. Kent Hamlin, Judge.

Eleanor M. Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A felony complaint filed November 21, 2007, charged appellant Eric Lee Hackett with a felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision(a),^[1]possession of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor violation of section 11357, subdivision (b), possession of marijuana, and a misdemeanor violation of section 11364, possession of paraphernalia. The complaint also alleged that Hackett had served three prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

On November 26, 2007, Hackett entered not guilty pleas and denied all priors and enhancements.

On December 7, 2007, Hackett withdrew his not guilty plea to the violation of section 11377, subdivision (a), pled guilty to that charge, and admitted all priors and enhancements. The court dismissed the misdemeanor charges, suspended imposition of judgment and sentence for a period of two years, and placed Hackett on two years formal probation, and placed him in the Proposition 36 program. The court imposed and credited him 28 days for time already served in jail (19 actual days, 9 good time) and ordered him to pay a $20 court security fee, a $200 restitution fund fine, a $200 probation revocation fine (stayed), and a $50 criminal lab fee pursuant to section 11372.5.

On December 8, 2007, Hackett lodged a document entitled Affidavit: For the Record. PC 1237. On May 6, 2008, we granted Hacketts application to construe that document as a notice of appeal.

FACTS^[2]

On November 19, 2007, deputies were dispatched to a residence to handle a verbal disturbance. Upon his arrival, Deputy Witrado contacted Hackett and searched him for weapons, and found a pipe used for smoking narcotics, a small amount of crystal methamphetamine, and a small amount of marijuana.

On May 12, 2008, Hacketts appellate counsel filed an appellants opening brief requesting us to conduct an independent review of the entire record and informing us she advised Hackett of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. On May 12, 2008, we also advised Hackett he had 30 days within which to submit a letter stating any grounds of appeal he wanted us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Hacketts appellate counsel has complied fully with her professional responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Hill, J.

^[1]Subsequent statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.

^[2]The facts have been taken from the Fresno County Sheriffs Department Arrest Report.