P. v. Vaughns

Filed 8/29/06 P. v. Vaughns CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Fred J. Fujioka, Judge. Affirmed.

Billy Vaughns, in pro. per., and Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________

Defendant Billy Vaughns appeals from the judgment entered following a bifurcated jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of resisting an executive officer by force or violence (Pen. Code, § 69) and one count of being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and found to have suffered six prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (a), one of which also qualified under Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (b)(i)/1170.12 (the “Three Strikes” law). The prosecution, in which defendant represented himself, arose from an incident in which two police officers responded to a call that defendant was breaking windows at an apartment complex. Defendant, who was under the influence of cocaine, forcibly resisted the officers as they apprehended him.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) We then sent notice to defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. In response, defendant submitted a lengthy supplemental brief. In it, he argues, among other things, that his motion under Penal Code section 995 was improperly denied, that his suppression motion was improperly denied, that there were violations of discovery and of his rights under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, that evidentiary errors were made during the trial, that findings of his prior convictions were improper, that a doubt should have been declared as to his competency to stand trial, that he was improperly sentenced, and that the proceedings were unconstitutional.

We have thoroughly examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellate counsel has fully complied with her obligations under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441, and that no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MALLANO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, J.

JACKSON, J.^*

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

^* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.