P. v. Edwards
Filed 10/9/07 P. v. Edwards CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELISHA EDWARDS, Defendant and Appellant. | C054788 (Super. Ct. Nos. 065148, 055324, 054219) |
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.[1] Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) The facts underlying the offenses are taken from the probation report.
Case No. 054219
On July 5, 2005, narcotics agents and parole officers approached defendant, who was sitting in his idling car behind a liquor store and pouring beer into a plastic cup. Upon a consensual search of the car, officers found three hypodermic needles and a spoon containing black tar heroin residue. Defendant was arrested and, during the booking search, attempted to swallow seven grams of black tar heroin. Officers were forced to taser defendant to retrieve the substance. Defendant was also in possession of $836 cash and was believed to be under the influence of heroin.
Defendant was charged with possession of heroin for sale, transportation of heroin, forcibly resisting an executive officer, and misdemeanor possession of a hypodermic needle.
Case No. 055324
A confidential and reliable informant for narcotics officers purchased 0.3 grams of methamphetamine from an unidentified woman on June 15, 2005. The informant also purchased 0.9 grams of heroin from a different woman. Defendant participated in both negotiations and was known to the informant as Chief. Additional, undescribed events occurred on June 22, 2005; July 11, 2005; July 19, 2005; and August 25, 2005.
Defendant was charged with four counts of selling heroin, two of which included an on bail enhancement allegation, possession of heroin for sale and maintaining a place for the sale or use of controlled substances, both of which also included on bail enhancement allegations, and resisting a peace officer.
Case No. 065148
A patrol officer saw defendant walking down the street on September 9, 2006, focused on an object in his hand. When the officer yelled out to defendant, defendant began to quickly walk away. A repeated request to stop was not heeded so the officer ran after defendant. As the officer approached, defendant reached into his waistband and threw an object on the ground. That object was later found to be 0.2 grams of heroin. Defendant was forced to the ground as he continued to resist the officer. Defendant then tossed away a syringe. Defendant denied the heroin was his and claimed he did not use heroin.
Defendant was charged with transportation of heroin with an on bail enhancement allegation, resisting a peace officer, misdemeanor destruction of evidence, and misdemeanor possession of a hypodermic needle.
Plea
Defendant entered into a global settlement in which he pled no contest to one count of possession of heroin for sale in case No. 054219, one count of possession of heroin for sale in case No. 055324, and one count of transportation of heroin with an on bail enhancement in case No. 065148. In exchange for his plea, the remaining charges in those three cases, along with several additional pending cases, were dismissed. The parties agreed to a stipulated aggregate sentence of six years four months.
Thereafter, defendant said he wished to withdraw his plea because he did not understand it and had entered it under duress. Defendants counsel said she did not believe there were grounds to withdraw the plea. The People stated they did not oppose withdrawal of the plea and would take the cases to trial. The trial court appointed a conflict counsel to evaluate the matter.
At the sentencing hearing, the conflict counsel represented to the court that he had investigated the matter and defendant had decided to drop his request to withdraw his plea. The People requested the plea be withdrawn. After confirming that defendant wished to stand by his plea, the trial court ruled the plea agreement would stand.
Sentence
In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the lower term of three years for transportation of heroin in case No. 065148; an additional two years for an on bail enhancement, a consecutive one-third the midterm of four years, or one year four months, for possession of heroin for sale in case No. 055324; and a concurrent lower term of three years for possession of heroin for sale in case No. 054219. Probation was terminated in four pending cases.
Defendant was awarded 156 days of custody credit. He was also ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, and a $170 laboratory analysis fee including penalty assessments.
Defendant appealed. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We do, however, note one error in the abstract of judgment that requires correction. As stated above, the trial court imposed the $50 mandatory Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 laboratory analysis fee, and $120 in corresponding penalty assessments. This laboratory analysis fee and its penalty assessments are erroneously omitted from the abstract of judgment. (See People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [[a]ll fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment as stated in the opinion and to forward a certified copy of said abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
[1] Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
