P. v. Dillard
Filed 1/19/07 P. v. Dillard CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DESMOND DEMOND DILLARD, Defendant and Appellant. | F050448 (Super. Ct. No. BF113009A) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael B. Lewis, Judge.
Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On December 20, 2005, Bakersfield police officers saw appellant, Desmond Dillard, arguing with his girlfriend in front of the drive-through of a Wienerschnitzel restaurant. The officers drove into the parking lot and approached Dillard as he placed a clear plastic baggie containing a white object in his mouth. The officers wrestled with Dillard to prevent him from swallowing the white object and eventually arrested him.
On December 22, 2005, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Dillard with one count each of possession for sale of cocaine base (count 1/Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), resisting an executive officer (count 2/Pen. Code, § 69), and misdemeanor destroying evidence (count 3/Pen. Code, § 135). Counts 1 and 2 contained a serious felony enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), a gang enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and allegations that Dillard had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Count 1 also alleged a prior conviction enhancement (Health & Saf. Code § 11370.2).
On January 5, 2006, Dillard pled no contest to resisting an executive officer and admitted the prior strike allegations in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations and a lid of 32 months.
On April 4, 2006, the court denied appellant's Romero[1] motion, sentenced him to the mitigated term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of the prior strike conviction, and ordered appellant's money returned to him.
Dillard's appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Dillard has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.
[1] People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
