P. v. Rodriguez

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 10/1/13  P. v. Rodriguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.   MATTHEW RODRIGUEZ,        Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B248096 (Super. Ct. No. PA073611) (Los Angeles County)

 

                        Matthew Rodriguez
appeals his conviction by jury of one count of href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">possession of marijuana for sale (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11359).  The trial
court sentenced him to the midterm of two years to be served in county jail
(Pen. Code,

§
1170, subd. (h)(1), (2)), and awarded 38 days of presentence credits. 

                        On May 15, 2012, undercover police officers observed
a man enter appellant’s residence in Sun Valley, only to
exit a couple minutes later.  The
officers detained and searched the man, discovering a plastic bag containing
marijuana in his pocket. 

                        A week later, officers
executed a search warrant at the
residence.  They recovered $56,225 in
cash, mostly in $100 bills, and approximately 650 grams of marijuana.  They also discovered thousands of different
sized baggies.  Eighteen months earlier,
officers had seized over a pound of marijuana, $4,100 in cash and numerous
baggies at the same residence.  Appellant
was charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §
11359). 

                        At trial, Detective
Travis Coyle testified that the street value of the 650 grams of marijuana was
$13,000.  Based on his experience as an
undercover narcotics officer, Coyle opined that the amount of marijuana, large
amount of cash and numerous baggies indicated that appellant possessed the
marijuana for the purpose of sales. 

                        We appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel to represent appellant in this
appeal.  After examining the record,
counsel filed an opening brief
raising no issues and requesting that we independently examine the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436. 

                        On August 7, 2013, we advised appellant in writing
that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">contentions or issues he wished to raise
on appeal.  Appellant did not respond.

                        Having examined the
entire record, we are satisfied that appointed counsel has fully complied with
her responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist.  (People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

                        The judgment is
affirmed.   

                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 

 

                                                                        PERREN,
J.

 

 

We concur:

 

> 

 

                        GILBERT, P. J.

 

 

 

                        YEGAN, J.



Daniel
B. Feldstern, Judge

 

Superior
Court County
of Los Angeles

______________________________

 

 

                        Linn Davis, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

                        No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.