P. v. Portillo
Filed 9/4/07 P. v. Portillo CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLORIA PORTILLO, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B195994 (Super. Ct. No. BA296250) (Los Angeles County) |
Gloria Portillo appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted her of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11379) and possession for sale of a controlled substance (id., 11378). As to count 1, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Portillo on formal probation for 36 months with terms and conditions that include 365 days in county jail. She received the same sentence on count 2, to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1, but the court stayed that sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Portillo was arrested after she and an accomplice sold methamphetamine to an undercover police officer. Her car was searched as an incident to her arrest. Police officers found several baggies containing methamphetamine, a glass pipe, and $613 in cash hidden in various places in the vehicle. The $20 bill that the undercover officer gave Portillo's accomplice also was found in Portillo's car.
Portillo testified in her own defense, denying that she sold drugs and asserting the drugs found in her car belonged to her accomplice.
Portillo's counsel filed a Pitchess motion asking for the personnel records of the five police officers involved in her arrest. The trial court granted the motion only as to the officer who bought the methamphetamine.
We appointed counsel to represent Portillo in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. She also requested that we review sealed police personnel files under People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216.
On May 30, 2007, we advised Portillo that she had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments she wished us to consider. She failed to file a brief or any other response.
We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera proceeding. The transcript reveals the trial court reviewed all potentially relevant police personnel files. (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1284; People v. Mooc, supra, 24 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229.) We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Portillo's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Luis A. Lavin, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Deborah Blanchard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
