P. v. Sanchez
Filed 7/20/06 P. v. Sanchez CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO SANCHEZ et al.,, Defendants and Appellants. | D047876 (Super. Ct. No. SCD188937) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Eduardo Sanchez and Carlos Sanchez entered negotiated guilty pleas to possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 113770, subd. (a)) and admitted being armed with a firearm during the offense. (Pen. Code, § 1022, subd. (c)). The court denied a motion to quash a search warrant and sentenced each to prison for five years: the two-year middle term for possessing a controlled substance for sale enhanced three years for being armed with a firearm. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
FACTS
On February 7, 2005, narcotics task force agents executed a search warrant at the home of the Sanchez family in National City. They found 468 grams of methamphetamine, 109 grams of cocaine, scales, plastic sandwich bags, cellular telephones, approximately $31,000 cash, pay-and-owe paperwork, and a firearm.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, Carlos Sanchez's counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue whether the trial court abused is discretion in denying probation. Eduardo Sanchez's counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Eduardo's guilty plea was knowing and intelligent; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation.[1]
We granted Carlos Sanchez and Eduardo Sanchez permission to file a brief on their own behalf. Neither has responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Carlos Sanchez and Eduardo Sanchez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Real Estate Lawyers.
[1] Because Carlos Sanchez and Eduardo Sanchez entered guilty pleas, they cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
