P. v. Stuart

Filed 5/16/06  P. v. Stuart CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  Christian F. Thierbach, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            On June 16, 2005, a jury found defendant, who was represented by counsel, guilty of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) (count 1); possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) (count 2); and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) (count 3).  While the jury was deliberating, defendant admitted that he had suffered three prior convictions for possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)). 

                 Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 13 years in state prison as follows:  the middle term of four years on count 1, plus three 3-year consecutive terms for the prior drug-related convictions; a two-year middle term on count 2 was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and a two-year middle term on count 3 was ordered to run concurrently to the sentence on count 1.

                        Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him.  Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

            We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done.  Defendant's supplemental brief filed on May 5, 2006, has been read and considered.

            We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

            The judgment is affirmed.

            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI         

                        J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST              

    Acting P.J.

McKINSTER

                   J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Apartment Manager Lawyers.