P. v. Salcido
Filed 11/13/08 P. v. Salcido CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL SALCIDO, Defendant and Appellant. | H032852 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS072430) |
While incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, defendant Michael Salcido was found in possession of a prison issued razor blade wrapped in paper and scotch tape with part of the blade exposed. The blade was on an upper shelf in his cell with some papers belonging to him. Defendant alleged that he used the blade to cut sheets into strips for a pull-up bar for working out. Defendant admitted that the razor blade was his, acknowledged that razor blades were contraband and he was punished administratively.
Thereafter, defendant was charged with one felony count of possession of a weapon, a sharp instrument, by a prisoner. (Pen. Code, 4502, subd. (a).) The complaint also alleged one strike prior and two prison priors. (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) After defendant waived his rights to a jury trial, the trial court found him guilty as charged and found the strike and prison prior allegations to be true. After denying the defendants motion pursuant to People v. Romero (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and dismissing one prison prior on the district attorneys motion, the court sentenced defendant to a total of five years in prison to be served consecutively to the sentence he was currently serving. This timely appeal ensued. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
