P. v. Barreto

Filed 6/6/06 P. v. Barreto CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Burt Pines, Judge. Affirmed.

Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard L. Fitzer, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

On the afternoon of July 15, 2005, two San Fernando city police officers pulled over a car, searched the driver and passengers, and found a rock of methamphetamine weighing 9.64 grams in the sock of one passenger--Barragan Barreto. Barreto was charged with one count of transporting methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) Barreto decided to plead guilty, and agreed to a bench trial on only one issue: whether he had transported the drug for sale or for his personal use. In exchange, if Barreto were found to have transported the drug for his personal use, he would receive probation for drug treatment under Proposition 36. If the court found that Barreto intended to sell the drug, he would instead be sentenced to three years in state prison. After conducting that trial, the court found that Barreto had transported the drug for the purposes of sale and imposed a three-year state prison sentence.

We appointed counsel to represent Barreto on this appeal. On February 6, 2006, after examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. The brief included a declaration stating that counsel had informed Barreto of his right to file a supplemental brief. On February 7, 2006, we advised Barreto of his counsel's inability to find any arguable issues and told Barreto he had 30 days to submit by brief or letter any contentions he wished this court to consider. On February 28, 2006, Barreto filed a supplemental letter brief that attempted to raise arguable issues on appeal concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, and the competence of his trial lawyer.

We have examined the entire record and considered the contents of Barreto's supplemental brief, and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

RUBIN, J.

We concur:

COOPER, P. J. FLIER, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.