P. v. Campuzano
Filed 2/28/07 P. v. Campuzano CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sutter)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGELA MARIE CAMPUZANO, Defendant and Appellant. | C053431 Super. Ct. Nos. CRF05941 CRM061680 |
In Sutter County case No. CRF05941, following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant Angela Marie Campuzano guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and sustained an allegation that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for possession of ephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11383, subd. (c)(1), 11370.2, subd. (c)(2)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a middle term of two years with a consecutive three-year enhancement pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c)(2), imposed a $1,000 Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine, and stayed a $1000 parole revocation fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Defendant was awarded 29 actual days and 14 conduct days for a total of 43 days conduct credit.
In Sutter County case No. CRM061680, defendant was charged with possession of a syringe (Bus. & Prof. Code, 4140), and possession of less than an ounce of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b)). The charges were dismissed on the motion of the prosecution at the sentencing hearing for No. CRF050941.
On April 21, 2005, Sutter County Sheriffs deputies executed a search warrant on defendants apartment. The deputies discovered a plastic Wal-Mart bag. Inside the bag were two plastic containers holding 9.23 and 19.67 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant was present at the search, and a search of her discovered three plastic baggies containing 1.78, .64, and .47 grams of methamphetamine.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the search, contending the warrant was invalid because the magistrate signed it one day after the search took place. The trial court denied the motion, finding the magistrate signed the warrant before the search was executed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
