P. v. Morgan

Filed 2/21/07  P. v. Morgan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 Riverside County.  Michael S. Hider, Judge.  (Retired judge of the Merced Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)  Affirmed.

            Laura L. Furness, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            On June 12, 2006, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379.6(a), possession of ephedrine for manufacturing, as alleged in count one of the information charged by the District Attorney of Riverside County.  Defendant also admitted the special allegations filed pursuant to Penal Code section 12022(c) and Health and Safety Code section 11370.2(b).

            Thereafter, defendant was committed to state prison for 12 years less custody credits and, in accordance with the plea bargain, the remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the people and in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.

Facts

            A search of defendant's residence by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department revealed that defendant was in possession of several weapons including a shotgun, a pistol, a revolver, and a rifle.  In addition, the sheriff's department search revealed a quarter of a gallon of biphasic liquid, hydrogen peroxide, more than two gallons of iodine tincture, muriatic acid, stain filters, stain tubing, 10 grams of iodine crystals and a gas generator.

            Defendant consented to the search and after the search he was arrested.

Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him.  Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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.

            The judgment is affirmed.

            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS       

RAMIREZ                             

                                                P.J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST                 

                                             J.

RICHLI                                  

                                             J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.