P. v. Ensminger
Filed 2/9/10 P. v. Ensminger CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT F. ENSMINGER, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B216932 (Super. Ct. No. F421979) (San Luis Obispo County) |
Robert F. Ensminger appeals the judgment entered following his guilty plea to transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code,[1] 11379, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine ( 11377, subd. (a)), and use of a false compartment to store a controlled substance ( 11366.8, subd. (a)). He also admitted serving four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, he was sentenced to a total term of nine years four months in state prison. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
Because appellant pleaded guilty prior to trial, the relevant facts are derived from the preliminary hearing transcript. On August 27, 2008, appellant was stopped by the police for a traffic violation. After it was discovered that appellant was on parole, his vehicle was searched. Methamphetamine, two scales, and cash were found inside the vehicle. Some of the contraband was found in a hidden compartment that appellant revealed to the parole agent who conducted the search.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On October 13, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant did not respond.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Dodie A. Harman, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
