P. v. Scott
Filed 1/30/07 P. v. Scott CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THADDEUS ANTHONY LEVELL SCOTT, Defendant and Appellant. | C053190 (Super. Ct. No. SF099936A) |
Following the denial of defendant Thaddeus Anthony Levell Scotts motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), he pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) in exchange for which he received the dismissal of other charges and an agreed-upon two-year prison sentence, that term to run concurrently with a parole violation. The court imposed fines of $400 in accordance with Penal Code section 1202.45, plus a 10 percent surcharge ($40), and credited defendant with 145 days for time served.
FACTS
In the midafternoon of April 12, 2006, Sergeant Michael Reynosa of the City of Stockton Police Department and two other officers, all in uniform and in a marked police vehicle, drove to an apartment complex known for its drug and gang problems. As the officers approached a group of men standing in the back of the complex, two of the men ran into an apartment and defendant ran around the side of the building. Reynosa knew defendant from a prior contact and that defendant was on parole. Reynosa gave chase and found defendant at the window of the apartment, talking to someone inside. Defendant first turned away from Reynosa and the officer ordered defendant to drop what he had in his hands. Defendant turned toward Reynosa and dropped keys, money and a piece of rock cocaine. Reynosa detained and searched defendant, finding a loaded .25 caliber Raven handgun in defendants right front pants pocket.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
