P. v. Clark
Filed 9/15/06 P. v. Clark CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE D. CLARK, Defendant and Appellant. | A112686 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC058100) |
Appellant Jesse D. Clark filed an appeal from a judgment entered after his plea of nolo contendere. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
BACKGROUND
On January 5, 2005, Clark was arrested for violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350. On that date, Menlo Park police officers went to Clark's residence in Menlo Park to attempt service of an outstanding arrest warrant on Paris Nell Simmons. Simmons was on probation, subject to search and seizure, and had listed the address as her residence. The officers knocked on the door, and Clark responded that he was in the room with his fiancé. Through the partially open door, the officers could see Clark making tossing motions, which were consistent with the discarding of contraband.
Clark was detained at his residence where the officers found narcotics, paraphernalia, cocaine, heroin, syringes and a crack pipe. He was subsequently charged with allegations that made him eligible to be punished under the three strikes statute. Clark was released on bail in that case.
Later, on April 12, 2005, Clark was found unconscious by the police in his parked car. The police found a rock of cocaine, paraphernalia, and a crack pipe in his car, and he refused to take a urine test. He was returned to custody and charged with violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, including allegations punishable under the three strikes legislation. It was further alleged that Clark had eight prior convictions in 1972, 1977, 1979, 1986, 1999, and 2000. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 1203, subd. (E)(4) & 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).)
On September 26, 2005, Clark, while represented by counsel, voluntarily entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) He also admitted a single conviction from 1972 and three prior prison convictions. The plea was entered with the understanding that Clark would receive a term of six years four months, subject to the court's later consideration of a Romero motion. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) Before accepting Clark's plea, the court advised him of all the constitutional rights he would waive by entry of the plea. Clark was also advised of the consequences of his change of plea, including punishment, the payment of restitution, and the period of parole after release from prison.
Clark filed a Romero motion on November 30, 2005. The court heard and denied the Romero motion on December 23, 2005. The court sentenced Clark to five years four months in prison after giving him credit for 268 actual days served and 132 conduct days. He was ordered to pay a restitution fund fine of $400 and to register as a drug offender. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b).) Probation was denied based on statutory ineligibility and his previous unsatisfactory performance while on probation.
The court noted that Clark's long history of crimes began when he was a juvenile. His adult convictions commenced with a burglary in 1972, when he was 19 years old. He collected other prior serious felonies in violation of Penal Code section 211 in 1979 and in 1986. The court expressly made its decision based on Clark's criminal history, his unwillingness to abide by the law, and his prior unsatisfactory performance while on probation or parole. Clark filed this timely appeal.
Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
