P. v. Barber

Filed 7/18/07 P. v. Barber CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Anthony Kyle Barber pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 and admitted two prior convictions for violating the same section. He entered the plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The trial court accepted the plea and dismissed the two remaining charges, one for a violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(1), and the other for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364. The trial court imposed the upper prison term of three years. Appellant Barber appeals from the judgment of conviction.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel filed a brief that contained a statement of appealability, a statement of the case, and a statement of the facts. He requested that this court conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel suggested the following issue for our review: Did the trial court err in denying appellant's suppression motion on the ground that "the police improperly detained, searched, and arrested him since they had no specific articulable facts [that] appellant had committed a crime." But counsel advanced no argument and cited no authorities.

By letter dated January 8, 2007, we advised appellant that his counsel had filed an opening brief that did not raise any specific issues and he had 30 days within which to personally submit any written argument that he wished us to consider. We received no response from appellant.

The evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress indicated that appellant was detained by police after he had engaged in conduct raising the suspicion that he was in possession of a stolen bicycle. The trial court found there was reasonable cause to detain appellant. The preliminary examination indicates that, during the detention, one of the officers conducted a pat-down of appellant after he noticed a few inches of a metal object, otherwise concealed by appellant's clothing, which he suspected to be a weapon. The officer ultimately discovered a 10-inch blade in a metal sheath, a glass smoking pipe, and methamphetamine in individually packaged baggies on appellant.

We have reviewed the record and have determined there is no arguable issue on appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

ELIA, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

RUSHING, P. J.

______________________________

PREMO, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.