P. v. Brown























Filed 7/23/12 P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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. LEONARD ALFONSO BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.

B236604 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A919680)

APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County,
James R. Brandlin, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B.
Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No
appearance for Respondent.

——————————











The record
contains no information regarding the underlying facts in this action. In June 1987, a two-count felony complaint
was filed charging appellant Leonard Alfonso Brown with selling or transporting
cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352) and with possessing it for sale
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). The
complaint and information also included weight allegations as restrictions on
probation. (Pen. Code, § 1203.07,
subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).)href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] Brown pleaded guilty to the possession charge
and was sentenced to a three-year term in state prison.

In August 2011, Brown (then in
federal custody in Florida),
filed a petition entitled “Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc,” asking the court to
clarify and correct certain records pertaining to his conviction which he
claimed were erroneous. These records
(which are not included in our appellate record) purportedly referred to case
numbers A781940 and A795097 which, according to Brown, involved not him, but an
individual named Stefan Harris. The
court denied the petition on the grounds that it was both untimely and failed
to establish prejudice.

We
appointed counsel to represent Brown on appeal.
After examination of the record, Brown’s counsel filed an opening brief
raising no issues, and asking this court to independently review the
record. February 23, 2012, we advised Brown he had 30 days within
which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to
consider. To date, we have received no
response.

Having
examined the entire record we are satisfied that Brown’s counsel has fully
complied with his responsibilities, and that no arguable issues exist. (People
v. Kelly (2006 ) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

>DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.



JOHNSON,
J.



We concur:



ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.



CHANEY, J.