legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Vaca

P. v. Vaca
03:02:2007

P


P. v. Vaca


Filed 1/22/07  P. v. Vaca CA2/8


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION EIGHT







THE PEOPLE,


            Plaintiff and Respondent,


            v.


LUIS ALEX VACA,


            Defendant and Appellant.



      B188908


      (Los Angeles County


      Super. Ct. No. NA065757)


            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Richard R. Romero, Judge.  Affirmed.


            Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


_______________


            We affirm appellant Luis Alex Vaca's conviction for possession of a controlled substance.  After reviewing the entire record, we find no arguable issue.


PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


            Vaca was charged with possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a).


            Vaca moved for pretrial discovery pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.  A minute order indicated that discovery was provided to the defense.  Vaca made multiple Marsden motions, all of which were denied.  (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.)


            Before convicting him of possession of a controlled substance, the jury requested the read back of Vaca's testimony.  The court placed Vaca on probation for three years.  Vaca timely appealed.  His attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no contentions.  Vaca was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief.  Vaca did not file a supplemental brief.


FACTUAL BACKGROUND


            Jose Rios, a Long Beach police officer, testified that, at approximately 6:30 p.m. on March 29, 2005, he observed Vaca in an alley with Samuel Martinez.  Vaca handed something to Martinez.  Rios drove into the alley, and Vaca ran.  Rios found three individually packaged plastic bindles in an area where Vaca had been near a chain link fence.  Vaca said that he placed the bindles on the ground because he did not want to â€





Description Court affirm appellant Luis Alex Vaca's conviction for possession of a controlled substance. After reviewing the entire record, court find no arguable issue.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale