P. v. McCormick

Filed 1/17/07  P. v. McCormick CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Ingrid Adamson Uhler, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Michelle C. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            On March 6, 2006, an information was filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino City in case No. FWV-036868 which alleged in count one a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), possession of a controlled substance, and five special allegations charged pursuant to Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) - (d) and 667.5, subdivisions (b) - (i).

            Thereafter, on April 7, 2006, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty as charged and admitted two of the special allegations.  Defendant was committed to state prison for five years less custody credits and, in accordance with the negotiated disposition, the remaining special allegations were stricken on motion of the district attorney and misdemeanor case number MWV-102452 was dismissed in the interests of justice.  (Pen. Code, § 1385.)

Facts

            On February 1, 2006, a narcotics officer with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department made contact with defendant.  Defendant stated to the police officer that he was on parole and in possession of methamphetamine.  Defendant was arrested after two methamphetamine bindles were discovered pursuant to a pat-down search.

Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him.  Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Kelly (Nov. 27, 2006, S133114) __Cal.4th__ [2006 D.A.R. 15444], People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

            We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

            We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

Disposition

            The judgment is affirmed.

            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS       

RAMIREZ                             

                                                P.J.

We concur:

RICHLI                                  

                                             J.

KING                                     

                                             J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.