P. v. Morris
Filed 9/7/07 P. v. Morris CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRAIG S. MORRIS, Defendant and Appellant. | B196959 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA067732) |
THE COURT:*
Craig S. Morris appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to possession of a compound substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). He admitted a prior felony conviction under Penal Code sections 1170.12 subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667 subdivisions (b) through (i) arising out of the following facts. On November 18, 2006, appellant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for failure to yield. Appellant consented to a patdown search and when asked by police officers if he had anything on him that the officer should be concerned with, he stated that he had a syringe in his pocket. The officers found two syringes, a spoon with white residue on it, a surgical rubber strip, a white elastic medical bandage containing two syringes, a bent spoon and a long black shoelace. Appellant admitted using the objects to inject methamphetamine. Methamphetamine and marijuana were found on him during a booking search.
He was sentenced to the low term, 16 months, doubled to 32 months pursuant to Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed a Statement by Counsel on Appeal Pursuant to People v. Wendein which no issues were raised.
On May 16, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
