P. v. Wesp
A jury found defendant Donald Mitchell Wesp guilty of possession of methamphetamine. In sentencing defendant, the court exercised its discretion pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 and struck two of defendant’s prior felony convictions. The total sentence imposed by the court is five years in state prison.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel did state there was a potential issue regarding whether the police officer’s testimony and the evidence he seized should have been suppressed.
Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in defendant’s own behalf. We received a handwritten document from defendant in which he lists various legal issues such as “filing false police reports,†“fabricating evidence†or “false arrest.†Taken as a whole, the document appears to accuse defendant’s trial lawyer of incompetence since there are various notations about “frivolous motions to suppress,†“fabricating evidence with prosecutor,†“she would not do as told she would not mention anything about evidence that would defend me nothing†and “using a pack of sugar to mislead the jury an stating I had a prior. Misleading the jury.â€
Comments on P. v. Wesp