P. v. Hightower
Filed 2/14/06 P. v. Hightower CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALENTINO LEE HIGHTOWER, Defendant and Appellant. | C050660
(Super. Ct. No. 05F05105)
|
Defendant Valentino Lee Hightower entered a negotiated plea of no contest to unlawful possession of cocaine base for purchase or sale, and providing a place for the manufacture of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351.5, 11366.5.) He also admitted having a strike prior. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) In exchange for his plea, additional charges were dismissed and it was stipulated defendant would receive a sentence of 11 years 4 months in state prison.
The trial court imposed the stipulated sentence, consisting of the upper term of five years, doubled, for possession of cocaine base for purchase or sale and one-third the middle term of two years (or eight months), doubled, for providing a place for the manufacture of a controlled substance. Various fines and fees were also imposed, including two restitution fines of $2,200 (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, 1202.45), with the latter suspended unless defendant's parole is revoked. Defendant was awarded 43 days of custody credit.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P.J.
HULL , J.
Publication courtesy of El Cajon Real Estate Attorneys ( http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/ ) And El Cajon Lawyers Directory. ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )
