P. v. Griggs
Filed 1/8/09 P. v. Griggs CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES GRIGGS, Defendant and Appellant. | B208793 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA333605) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles F. Palmer, Judge. Affirmed.
Deborah Blanchard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________
Charles Griggs was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine and misdemeanor possession of a smoking device. The convictions were based on a December 13, 2007 incident during which an undercover police officer observed defendant place cocaine in a coffee mug being held by another man while the two were at the intersection of Seventh and Berendo Streets in Los Angeles. Defendant testified in his own behalf and denied that he had possessed or handled any cocaine. Defendant was granted probation on various terms and conditions, including that he serve time in county jail and complete a live-in drug program.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. On October 17, 2008, appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441442.) Also on October 17, we sent letters to defendant and appointed counsel, directing counsel to immediately forward the appellate record to defendant and notifying defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. To date, no response has been received.
We have examined the entire record, including undertaking an independent review of an in camera hearing held under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. Based on that review, we are satisfied that defendants counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order granting probation) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, P. J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
WEISBERG, J.*
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
*Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
