P. v. Emery
P. v. Emery
02:10:2006
P. v. Emery
Filed 2/1/06 P. v. Emery CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DENO WAYNE EMERY,
Defendant and Appellant.
E038746
(Super.Ct.No. FWV34227)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gus Skropos, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Casey Mackey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant sold one piece of rock cocaine to an undercover officer on January 25, 2005.
On April 7, 2005, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant in count 1 with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5)[1] and sale of cocaine (§ 11352, subd. (a)) in count 2.
A preliminary hearing was held on April 28, 2005, and the defendant was held to answer.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea, a third count was added by interlineation, possession for sale of cocaine. (§ 11351.) Defendant entered a plea of guilty to that count and the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the other two counts. The prosecutor agreed to a commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) for treatment of drug addiction. If he were to be rejected by CRC, he would receive the low term of two years in state prison.
The defendant initialed and signed a plea agreement form waiving his constitutional rights. The court also orally advised the defendant of those rights and canvassed him as to the particulars of the agreement in open court. The court found that the waiver of rights was free and voluntary and the entry of plea was voluntary. The parties stipulated that the police reports, preliminary transcript and lab reports would be considered to provide the factual basis for entry of plea.
Defendant waived referral to the probation department and agreed to immediate sentencing in accordance with the plea bargain. As part of the negotiated plea, defendant waived his right of appeal.
Defendant has appealed. He neither sought nor was issued a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
At defendant's request we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel had filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record.
We provided defendant with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/ Gaut
J.
/s/ King
J.
Publication courtesy of Tecate Minimum Wage Lawyer (with http://www.mcmillanlaw.us.), and Tecate Lawyer Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com)
[1] All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.
02:10:2006
Filed 2/1/06 P. v. Emery CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DENO WAYNE EMERY,
Defendant and Appellant.
E038746
(Super.Ct.No. FWV34227)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gus Skropos, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Casey Mackey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant sold one piece of rock cocaine to an undercover officer on January 25, 2005.
On April 7, 2005, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant in count 1 with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5)[1] and sale of cocaine (§ 11352, subd. (a)) in count 2.
A preliminary hearing was held on April 28, 2005, and the defendant was held to answer.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea, a third count was added by interlineation, possession for sale of cocaine. (§ 11351.) Defendant entered a plea of guilty to that count and the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the other two counts. The prosecutor agreed to a commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) for treatment of drug addiction. If he were to be rejected by CRC, he would receive the low term of two years in state prison.
The defendant initialed and signed a plea agreement form waiving his constitutional rights. The court also orally advised the defendant of those rights and canvassed him as to the particulars of the agreement in open court. The court found that the waiver of rights was free and voluntary and the entry of plea was voluntary. The parties stipulated that the police reports, preliminary transcript and lab reports would be considered to provide the factual basis for entry of plea.
Defendant waived referral to the probation department and agreed to immediate sentencing in accordance with the plea bargain. As part of the negotiated plea, defendant waived his right of appeal.
Defendant has appealed. He neither sought nor was issued a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
At defendant's request we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel had filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record.
We provided defendant with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/ Gaut
J.
/s/ King
J.
Publication courtesy of Tecate Minimum Wage Lawyer (with http://www.mcmillanlaw.us.), and Tecate Lawyer Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com)
[1] All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.
| Description | A criminal law decision on possesion of cocaine base for sale. |
| Rating |
