P. v. Davis

Filed 5/4/06 P. v. Davis CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael B. Lewis, Judge.

Maureen L. Fox, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

In January 2003 in Kern County case No. BF100390A, the instant case, appellant Larry Davis pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1) and no contest to petty theft (Pen. Code, § 488; count 2). In February 2003, on count 1 the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years' probation. Conditions of probation included that he serve nine months in county jail, refrain from further violations of the law and refrain from the use and possession of, inter alia, marijuana and other drugs. On count 2, the court imposed a concurrent jail term of 25 days.

Subsequently, appellant was charged in Kern County case No. BF110208 (new case) with four offenses, including possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sales (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and possession of more than one ounce of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)). In May 2005, at a hearing that served as a preliminary hearing in the new case and a probation revocation hearing in the instant case, the court held appellant to answer on each charge in the new case and, in the instant case, found appellant to be in violation of his probation. In June 2005, the court imposed the two-year midterm on count 1 in the instant case. The instant appeal followed.

Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Lawyers.

^* Before Harris, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.