P. v. Tarver
Filed 7/3/13 P. v. Tarver CA2/6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
ALLEN
TARVER,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim. No. B246457
(Super. Ct.
No. BA395939)
(Los Angeles
County)
Allen Tarver appeals
from the judgment following his no contest plea to
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5).
Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court suspended imposition of
sentence and granted three years probation with 180 days county jail. Appellant was ordered pay a $200 restitution
fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b))
a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court security fee, a
$30 conviction assessment, a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5),
and $85 penalty assessments (§ 1464; Gov., Code, § 76000).
We appointed
appeal. After counsel’s examination of
the record, he filed an opening brief
in which no issues were raised.
On May 21, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30
days within which to personally submit any contentions
or issues he wished us to consider.
No response has been received.
The arrest report,
preliminary hearing transcript, and transcript of the motion to suppress
evidence reflect that the Los Angeles Police Department found baggies of rock
cocaine, a revolver and shotgun, cash, pills, marijuana, a razor blade, and a
scale in appellant's bedroom during a probation search of his father's, David
Tarver, house. The trial court partially
granted appellant's motion to suppress evidence (§1538.5) on the ground that
the firearms, pills, cash, marijuana, razor blade, and scale were not in plain
view during the protective sweep of appellant's bedroom. The trial court denied the
and a revolver which were in plain view.
We have reviewed the
entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied
with his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN,
J.
We
concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Gail Ruderman Feuer, Judge
Superior
Court County
of Los Angeles
______________________________
Richard Fitzer, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for
Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise stated.
