Filed 8/21/17 P. v. Campos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERIBERTO CAMPOS,
Defendant and Appellant.
| H042924 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1481653) |
After defendant Eriberto Campos waived his right to a jury trial, the trial court found him guilty of possessing a concealed dirk or dagger. (Pen. Code, § 21310.)[1] Defendant then admitted that he had a prior felony conviction that qualified as a “strike” (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the strike allegation (see People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and placed him on probation, ordering him to serve one year in county jail.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record. We agree with defendant’s appellate counsel that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the order of probation.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case.
On April 20, 2014, at about 9:30 p.m., Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Deputy Carrie Gordon responded to a rural area of San Jose, where she saw two illegally parked vehicles. There were six people around the vehicles. All or most of the six individuals had gang tattoos and were wearing gang clothing. Defendant was one of the six individuals.
Defendant told Deputy Gordon he had no weapons on his person. He consented when she asked to search him. Deputy Gordon located a black-handled knife in defendant’s right front pants pocket. The knife, which was in a sheath, had a fixed four- or five-inch blade with a serrated edge. The sheath held the knife with a small strap, which was secured by a button. The button easily came undone; the release could be accomplished by “a flick” of the thumb.
Defendant was charged with possessing a concealed dirk or dagger (§ 21310), with allegations that he had a prior felony conviction that qualified as a “strike” (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). After a court trial, the trial court found him guilty of the substantive offense, and defendant admitted the strike and prior prison term allegations. At sentencing, the trial court dismissed the strike allegation and placed defendant on probation, ordering him to serve one year in county jail.[2]
Discussion
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)
DISPOSITION
The order of probation is affirmed.
____________________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
ELIA, ACTING P.J.
_________________________________
MIHArA, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] At sentencing, the trial court stated, “[I]mposition of sentence will be suspended. There will be a one-year county jail term. The Court will also suspend three years of prison at Department of Correction[s]. And . . . I’m imposing the aggravated term of three years.” There is no abstract of judgment.
