P. v. Watson
Filed 8/7/07 P. v. Watson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS ADAM WATSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C054036 (Super. Ct. Nos. 05F1771, 06F4528) |
In case No. 05F1771, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed 36 months of formal probation and ordered defendant to pay a $157.50 lab fee, a $220 restitution fine, and a $128 booking fee. Defendant subsequently admitted to violating his probation.
In case No. 06F4528, defendant pleaded no contest to willfully evading an officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), resisting or obstructing a public officer (Pen. Code, 148, subdivision (a)(1)), possession of a hypodermic needle (Bus. & Prof. Code, 4140), being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a)), misdemeanor evading an officer (Veh. Code, 2800, subd. (a)), and admitted a prior prison term allegation.
The trial court sentenced defendant to four years eight months in case No. 06F4528, plus a consecutive eight-month sentence in case No. 05F1771, for a total term of five years four months. The court also imposed two $200 restitution fines, stayed two $200 restitution fines pending completion of parole, imposed $120 in court security fees, two $157.50 laboratory fees, and awarded 495 days custody credit (331 actual plus 164 conduct).
In case No. 06F4528, a Redding police officer observed a car driven by defendant speeding away from him at 70 to 75 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone. The officer activated his lights and siren but defendant would not yield. Defendant reached 80 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone.
Defendant eventually parked his car in a driveway and ran into an apartment complex where he was arrested by the officer. After he was apprehended, defendant started to run away again but was pepper-sprayed and subdued by the officer. Two syringes were found on defendant, and 0.5 grams of methamphetamine were found in his car. Defendant appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine.
Three days before this incident, defendant evaded an officer who had activated his emergency lights and siren. Defendant drove 40 miles per hour in a 25 mile-per-hour zone. Although the officer did not apprehend defendant, he later identified defendant as the driver.
In case No. 05F1771, defendants car was stopped for traffic violations. Defendant consented to a search of his car and a deputy found a methamphetamine pipe along with an Altoids box containing three baggies of methamphetamine.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
