P. v. Monroe
Filed 6/26/07 P. v. Monroe 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. VICTOR MONROE, Defendant and Appellant. | B194339 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA059527) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dabney, Judge. Affirmed.
Janice Wellborn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
A police officer saw Victor Monroe drive his car abruptly across three traffic lanes without signaling and come to a stop. Because this action was a Vehicle Code violation and the officer was concerned about Monroes safety, he drove his patrol car behind Monroe, stopped, and got out. When the officer approached Monroe, he detected an odor of marijuana and in a consensual search of the car found two plastic bags, one with marijuana, the other containing 28.3 grams of cocaine base. Monroe was charged with one count each of possession for sale of cocaine base and transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5, 11352, subd. (a)), but was convicted by a jury of the transportation count only. Imposition of sentence was suspended and Monroe was fined and placed on formal probation for three years, with a condition of probation that he serve 180 days in jail.
Monroe filed a notice of appeal, and we appointed appellate counsel to represent him. After reviewing the record, appellate counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 3, 2007, we notified Monroe that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues he wanted us to consider. Monroe has not responded. Based on our independent examination of the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
VOGEL, Acting P.J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
JACKSON, J.*
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
______________________________________________________________________________
*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
