P. v. Crepsac

Filed 6/12/06 P. v. Crepsac CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Karl Harry Crepsac was charged by information filed May 5, 2005, with possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a);[1] count 1), being under the influence of methamphetamine (§ 11550, subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 2), and possessing controlled substance paraphernalia (§ 11364, a misdemeanor; count 3). On June 3, 2005, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. The prosecutor filed opposition to the motion on June 21, 2005. Following a hearing on June 28, 2005, the trial court denied the motion.

On June 29, 2005, defendant entered a no contest plea to the charges with the understanding that he would be granted probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1210 et seq. (Prop. 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000). On August 11, 2005, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for 18 months with various terms and conditions, including that he participate in the treatment plan as directed by the court and the probation department. On August 29, 2005, defendant filed a notice of appeal based on the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b)(4)(A).)[2]

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written response from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

Appointed counsel has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, which we ordered considered with the appeal. We have disposed of the petition by separate order filed this day. (See rule 24(b)(4).)

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________

MIHARA, J.

_________________________

MCADAMS, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Attorneys.

[1] Further unspecified statutory references are to the Health & Safety Code.

[2] All further rule references are to the Cal. Rules of Court.