P. v. Williams

Filed 10/30/07 P. v. Williams CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James T. LaPorte, Judge.

William Davies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

By information filed December 18, 2006, appellant Ricky Rydale Williams was charged with offenses alleged to have occurred in Kings County on or about November 6, 2006. On January 4, 2007, he agreed to enter into a negotiated disposition which called for a lid of eight years, under the terms of which he would plead to count two, transportation of cocaine, and admit one of two prior narcotics convictions alleged. Count 1, possession for sale of cocaine base, and Count 3, possession of a controlled substance, would be dismissed, and two prison prior allegations would be dismissed. After being duly advised, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to one violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), and admitted one Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) allegation. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.

Sentencing occurred on February 2, 2007. The court found no basis for a grant of probation, and imposed the middle term of four years in state prison, plus three years for the enhancement. Restitution fines in the amount of $1400 were imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 and 1202.45. A court security fee in the amount of $20 was ordered pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8. A Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 laboratory fee was imposed in the amount of $50. Various penalty assessments were also imposed. Presentence credits in the amount of 110 days were awarded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Corcoran police met with a confidential informant on November 6, 2006, and were advised that the informant had seen the defendant with rock cocaine. A search warrant for the defendants residence and person was obtained on November 13, 2006.

On November 21, 2006, Corcoran Police Officer Chee was conducting surveillance on the defendants residence at twelve noon. The defendant was observed getting into the back of a vehicle, but the investigator watching the vehicle lost track of it. Officer Chee then drove around Corcoran in an attempt to locate the vehicle, and at 12:18 p.m. located the vehicle and observed the defendant in the back seat. The vehicle pulled into an apartment complex at which time a traffic stop was initiated.

The officer was familiar with the defendants prior record and modus operandi with regards to narcotics, and informed the defendant that he would be transported to the Corcoran Police Department for a strip search. At that time the defendant stated Alright man, I got it on me. The defendant then advised the officers that he had cocaine secreted in his rectum. The defendant later removed from his underwear a piece of toilet tissue which held eleven individually wrapped bags containing a white, powdery rock-like substance. The total weight combined was 4.5 grams.

Appellants appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which adequately summarizes the facts and adequately cites to the record, which raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) By letter dated May 11, 2007, this court invited appellant to submit additional briefing and state any grounds of appeal he may wish this court to consider. Appellant has not done so.

Our independent review discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issues. [A]n arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsels professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

^* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Gomes, J.