P. v. Duran

Filed 6/6/07 P. v. Duran CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:^*

Angel Patrick Duran, also known as Joseph Alscano, appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)),^[1]as a lesser included offense of possession for sale of cocaine base ( 11351.5), and selling/offering to sell, furnishing, administering, and giving away a controlled substance ( 11352, subd. (a)). The trial court found to be true the allegation that appellant suffered two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellants convictions were based upon the following facts.

At approximately 3:30 a.m., on February 6, 2006, two Los Angeles Police officers saw a person, later identified as Connelly, exit a taxicab in Panorama City and ask a man standing nearby where he could purchase drugs. After receiving the requested information, Connelly reentered the taxicab which drove away. The officers walked to the location which they heard Connelly had been given.

There, the officers observed the taxicab arrive, Connelly exit, walk up to the gate of an apartment building, and make contact with appellant, who exited from the apartment side of the gate and approached. Connelly and appellant had a short conversation, and appellant handed him three small items.

The officers, believing they had witnessed a narcotics transaction, approached the men and ordered them to put up their hands. As Connelly did so, he dropped the items from his hand. The items were recovered by the officers and appeared to be, and were subsequently determined to be, cocaine base. A crumpled $20 bill, that the officer had originally observed in Connellys left hand, was also recovered from one of his pockets. At the police station, a search of appellant yielded an off-white substance from his jacket pocket, later determined to be cocaine base.

At trial, appellant denied having had cocaine on his person at the time of the arrest or giving cocaine to Connelly or anyone else.

The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate state prison sentence of five years.

We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised.

On October 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 appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

^* DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.