Filed 2/5/18 P. v. Pratt CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
THOMAS PRATT,
Defendant and Appellant.

A152180

(Del Norte County
Super. Ct. No. CRPB16-5105)


In this case, appellate counsel has made an independent review of the trial court proceedings and determined the record reflects no meritorious claims for appeal. He has advised appellant Pratt of his conclusion. He also advised appellant he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues Pratt believes merit our review. Appellant has not filed any such brief or letter. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, counsel asks this court to make an independent review of the record. We have done so and find no issues meriting further briefing. We affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 29, 2016, the District Attorney of Del Norte County filed a one count complaint charging appellant Thomas Pratt, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, with felony possession of a weapon while confined in a state prison, a violation of Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a). The complaint also alleged six prior strike convictions occurring before the charged offense.
On February 6, 2017, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence based on a violation of his Miranda rights. After the district attorney filed a written opposition to the motion on February 14, 2017, appellant withdrew his motion alleging Miranda violations without any argument.
On February 16, 2017, the district attorney filed an information charging appellant with a single count of possession of a weapon while in a state prison, a violation of section 4502, subdivision (a), and the same six prior strikes charged in the original complaint. This case proceeded to trial on June 12, 2017, and the trial lasted one day. The jury returned a guilty verdict on count 1. During the bifurcated court trial on the strike priors, the judge found five of the six strike priors to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
At his sentencing on July 13, 2017, the trial court, relying on section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(A)(ii), sentenced appellant to a prison term of 25 years to life. The sentence was to run consecutively to appellant’s two prior sentences of 25 years to life. The court also imposed a total fine of $1,190.
On August 3, 2017, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of this case are based on our review of the transcript in the jury trial. On April 26, 2016, appellant Pratt was resting in his cell at Pelican Bay State Prison. It was approximately 6:00 a.m. Relying on information from an informant, the corrections staff learned appellant’s cell contained a weapon and cell phone, both prohibited items in the institution. Appellant was living in his cell with another inmate named Wilbarn. The officers entered the cell with the purpose of finding the prohibited items. They first removed appellant and his cellmate from the location in handcuffs so the staff could then conduct their investigation of the site. Appellant was escorted from the cell to a holding area by Officers Kaufmann and Pimentel.
While appellant was waiting in the holding area, Officer Kaufmann noticed he was fidgeting and shifting about. Kaufmann saw this through the glass window of the cell door. He entered the cell and took appellant from the holding area. Appellant was not wearing any shorts or boxers, which he had on before he entered the holding area. Officer Kaufmann went back into the holding area and found the underwear wrapped in a ball in the place where appellant had been previously. Kaufmann saw that clothing covered a rubber sheath, along with a stabbing item connected to a string. When Kaufmann examined the stabbing item, he observed it was sharp and made of metal. Showing the item to appellant, Kaufmann asked him what it was. Pratt replied, “It’s what you think it is.” After a further examination of appellant, staff officers found a cell phone concealed in his rectum.
As a result of the two discoveries by staff, appellant received two Department of Corrections rule violations for possessing a weapon and possession of the cell phone. During the course of the administrative investigation of these violations, appellant submitted an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury taking responsibility for possessing the weapon. During the same administrative proceedings, he eventually admitted to violating prison rules for possessing a weapon in the institution. He did not acknowledge possession of the cell phone.
As indicated, the case was tried before a jury. Appellant testified in his own behalf about the events described above. He contended the officers searched the holding area in which he was placed and found no contraband or phone. Instead, he claimed they found the weapon in the laundry bag located in his actual living cell. Once they found the weapon in the laundry bag, the staff confronted both appellant and his cellmate, Wilbarn, asking who owned the items. Appellant acknowledged possession of the weapon because Wilbarn was about to be released from prison; possession of a weapon by his cellmate would cause a delay in that person’s release and trigger additional time in jail. Appellant was already facing two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences and was not expecting release soon under the circumstances. To cover for his cellmate during the administrative proceedings, appellant also signed the affidavit describe above.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the transcript in this matter. We find appellant was properly represented by competent counsel during the trial of this case. All government witnesses were cross-examined professionally. We do not have a transcript of the jury selection, but nothing in the record suggests any appellate issues in this process. The jury had the full benefit of appellant’s account of the events. He specifically explained why he admitted possession of the weapon and his desire to protect his cellmate. He told the jury his affidavit was false and why he signed a false affidavit. The jury was properly instructed in the case. They did not raise any issues during the deliberation process. They returned their verdict.
There is nothing presented in this case to cause us to conclude no rational jury would find appellant guilty under the facts and evidence presented in the case. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.


_________________________
Dondero, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Humes, P. J.


_________________________
Margulies, J.




























A152180 People v. Pratt