P. v. Lane
Filed 7/2/13 P. v. Lane CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
RANDY
LANE,
Defendant and Appellant.
B244995
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BA393879)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. Stephen A.
Marcus, Judge. Affirmed.
Murray A.
Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
On February 2, 2012, Randy Lane sold rock cocaine base to a
police informant. He was charged with
violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5,
sale of a controlled substance, a violation of section 11352, subdivision (a),
count 2. It was further alleged he had
suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision
(a) and three prior felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section
667.5, subdivision (b).
Following advisement of his rights and the consequences of entering a
guilty plea, Lane pleaded no contest to count 2. The trial court found the plea was factually
supported and knowing, intelligent and voluntary. It dismissed the remaining count and special
allegations and, consistent with the plea
agreement, sentenced Lane to the midterm of four years in county jail (§
11352, subd. (a)); Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(2)), awarded 300 days good
conduct credit, and ordered him to pay a restitution fine of $400 (Pen. Code, §
1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code,
§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373),
and a $50 lab fee (§ 11372.5) and to provide biological samples (Pen.
Code, § 296, subd. (a)(1)) and register as a narcotics offender (§ 11590, subd.
(a)).
Defendant timely appealed, basing his appeal on the sentence and other
matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the
plea. We appointed counsel to represent
him on appeal. After examination of the
record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking
this court to independently review the record.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) On April 4, 2013, we sent letters to
defendant and appointed counsel, directing counsel to immediately forward the
appellate record to defendant and advising defendant that within 30 days he
could personally submit any contentions
or issues that he wished us to consider.
To date, defendant has not responded.
Defendant’s guilty plea and failure to obtain a
potential scope of defendant’s appeal to “[g]rounds that arose after entry of
the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity†or “[t]he denial of a motion to
suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.†(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); see Pen.
Code, § 1237.5.) We have examined
the entire record and have found that no arguable issues of any sort exist. We are satisfied that defendant’s appointed
counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110;
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY,
J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD,
Acting P. J.
JOHNSON,
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Undesignated statutory references will be to
the Health and Safety Code.
