P. v. White
Filed 6/25/13 P. v. White CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WESLEY WHITE,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243071
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BA395404)
THE COURT:
Appellant
Wesley White was charged in an amended information with felony
in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 1); felony
of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) (count 2); and
misdemeanor possession of a smoking device, in violation of Health and Safety
Code section 11364.1 (count 3). The
information further alleged that appellant had been convicted of a serious or
violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and that he had suffered prior
convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and within
the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c). After opening statements, the prosecutor
moved to add a felony charge of transportation
of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, as
a fourth count. The trial court granted
the motion over the objection of defense counsel.
The jury found appellant guilty as
charged. After the prosecutor was unable
to proceed on appellant’s prior strike for a serious or violent felony due to
lack of proof, appellant waived his rights on his two remaining priors and
admitted them as true.
Appellant was sentenced to a total
of five years eight months in state
prison, consisting of the mid-term of two years on count 1, plus three
years on the prior strike conviction under Health and Safety Code section
11370.2, subdivision (c), plus eight months for a probation violation. The trial court imposed a concurrent two-year
sentence on the possession of hydrocodone conviction, a concurrent three-year
sentence on the transportation conviction, and a concurrent six-month sentence
on the misdemeanor conviction. The trial
court struck the two Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) priors. Appellant received 118 days of actual credit
and 118 days of conduct credit, for a total of 236 days custody credit.
We appointed
appeal. After examination of the record,
counsel filed an “Opening Brief†in which no arguable issues were raised. On February
8, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to
personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Appellant submitted a response on March 6, 2013, asserting that his
trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance, but without any citation to
the record or any legal authority to support his assertions.
We have examined the entire record
and conclude that it provides a factual basis to support the convictions. The record shows that on March 21, 2012, Los Angeles Police Department
Officer Tyler Fox and his partner Officer Costello were on patrol in the “skid
row†area when they pulled over a car for an expired registration. Appellant was the driver and there were two
passengers, one of whom immediately got out of the car, and was ordered to stay
by the curb. The backseat of the car was
full of debris. Because appellant was
fidgeting with wires underneath the dashboard, Officer Fox suspected that the
car was stolen and asked appellant to step out of the car. Officer Costello searched appellant and found
a pipe intended for smoking methamphetamine in appellant’s left vest
pocket. In the backseat of the car,
Officer Fox found a backpack. The backpack contained a piece of paper with appellant’s
name, a Ziploc bag containing 6.03 grams of methamphetamine, another Ziploc bag
containing seven yellow and green pills, a digital scale, and numerous small
empty bags. According to Officer Fox, 6
grams of methamphetamine has a street value of $600.
Neither the record nor appellant’s
response demonstrate the existence of any cognizable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
name="_ftn1" title="">* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST,
J., CHAVEZ, J.
