P. v. Mathews
Filed 12/19/11 P. v. Mathews CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELVIN MATHEWS, Defendant and Appellant. | B231956 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA116358) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior court of Los Angeles County. Joel M. Wallenstein, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
When Melvin Mathews was stopped by sheriff’s deputies for a Vehicle Code violation he told them he had some “nickel rocks” in his pocket. A search revealed two pieces of rock cocaine base. Mathews was charged in a felony complaint with possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and it was alleged he had suffered a prior conviction on a similar charge in 2009 and also a 2002 conviction for making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422).[1]
Mathews pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the low term of 16 months and given 10 days custody credit. He was ordered to pay a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a restitution fine of $200 (§ 1202.4), a $50 lab analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), and a $200 parole revocation fine, which was stayed (§ 1202.45), and was ordered to provide biological samples upon request (§ 296).
Defendant timely appealed but the record does not reflect he sought a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel to represent him. After examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) On September 23, 2011, we sent letters to defendant and appointed counsel, directing counsel to immediately forward the appellate record to defendant and notifying defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. To date, defendant has not responded.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Further, defendant’s guilty plea and failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause limit the potential scope of defendant’s appeal to “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea's validity” or “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); see § 1237.5.) The record does not demonstrate the existence of any such issue.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P.J.
JOHNSON, J.
