P. v. Collins
Filed 2/24/06 P. v. Collins CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODNEY L. COLLINS, Defendant and Appellant. | B185184 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA088011) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dewey L. Falcone, Judge. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard L. Fitzer, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Rodney L. Collins appeals from judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and after his no contest plea to transportation of a controlled substance, count 1, (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), possession for sale of cocaine base, count 2, (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), his admission that during the commission of the offense in count 2, he was personally armed with a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c), and his admission that he was previously convicted of two prior serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following the granting of a motion to strike the two strike priors pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, he was sentenced to prison for four years.[1]
After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On December 28, 2005, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CURRY, Acting P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
HASTINGS, J.*
Publication courtesy of Vista restraining order attorney (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And Vista Lawyers Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )
[1] The sentence and enhancement in count 2 were stayed.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
