P. v. Vaca
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS Defendant and Appellant. | B188908 ( Super. |
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
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