P. v. Wilson
Filed 8/25/06 P. v. Wilson CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY LEE WILSON, Defendant and Appellant. | B187944 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA062153) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Francis Hourigan III, Judge. Affirmed.
Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Danny Lee Wilson appeals from a judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), his admission that he suffered one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a) – (d), 667, subds. (b) – (i)) and his admission that he served one prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for a total of nine years, composed of the middle term of four years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus one year pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On July 12, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
MANELLA, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
