P. v. Davis
Filed 6/30/06 P. v. Davis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ARTHUR LEWIS DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant. | B187469 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA062234) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura C. Ellison, Judge. Affirmed.
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Arthur Lewis Davis appeals from judgment entered following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count 1) and driving without a valid driver's license, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a), count 2). He was sentenced to the low term of 16 months in state prison on the cocaine possession count and a concurrent six months in county jail on the unlicensed driving count. The allegations of eight prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5 alleged in reference to count 1 were dismissed. He requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
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 May 17, 2006, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J. WILLHITE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Real Estate Lawyers.
