P. v. Williams
Filed 6/21/06 P. v. Williams CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC TAYLOR WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | A111403 (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR121475) |
Eric Taylor Williams appeals from a final judgment entered upon a plea of guilty. His court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record to determine whether it presents any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We shall conclude that it does not and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.
I.
Appellant was charged by information with one count of transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and a second count of possession of such a substance (id., § 11377, subd. (a)), as well as having served four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and having suffered two prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)), and one prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
On March 3, 2005, on the basis of a plea agreement, appellant pleaded no contest to a single violation of transporting a controlled substance and admitted two of the prior prison terms alleged, one prior drug violation, and the alleged prior felony conviction. The plea negotiation authorized a maximum prison term of 11 years and dismissal of the remaining offense charged and the other enhancements alleged.
At the sentencing hearing held on September 6, 2005, after denying appellant's Romero motion[1] to dismiss his prior felony conviction, the trial court sentenced him to six years in prison. The court imposed the three-year midterm, which was doubled due to the prior strike, and struck the other enhancements in the interest of justice (Pen. Code, § 1385), on the grounds that there were no aggravating factors, the small amount of the controlled substance involved was â€
