P. v. Jackson
Filed 5/15/08 P. v. Jackson CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PRENTIS JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. | D051817 (Super. Ct. No. SCN228930) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.
Prentis Jackson entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted he had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The plea bargain called for the dismissal of two prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and a stipulated prison term of four years. The court sentenced Jackson, in accordance with the plea bargain, to four yearsthe middle term of two years doubled pursuant to the "Three Strikes" law.
FACTS
On May 10, 2007, Escondido police officers arrested Jackson outside a liquor store pursuant to an arrest warrant. When the officers searched Jackson, they found a bindle containing an off-white substance inside a bag that Jackson was carrying. The bindle contained .46 grams of methamphetamine, a useable amount.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has not referred us to any possible, but not arguable, issues pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.[1]
We granted Jackson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Jackson on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] We note that counsel relates he has talked with Jackson, who wanted to be placed on Proposition 36 drug treatment probation below. Counsel attempted to determine Jackson's eligibility for Proposition 36. Because Jackson was sentenced immediately after his guilty plea to the stipulated prison term, a probation report was not prepared; hence, the record on appeal does not contain Jackson's criminal history. Counsel further relates that he researched Jackson's criminal history and concluded Jackson was not eligible for Proposition 36 consideration. Counsel's statements are not evidence, and we need not consider this issue.
