P. v. Hazelwood
Filed 6/13/06 P. v. Hazelwood CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHARON HAZELWOOD, Defendant and Appellant. | B185060 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA276622) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed.
Randy S. Kravis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________
Defendant and appellant Sharon Hazelwood appeals following her conviction by jury of transportation and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a), 11350, subd. (a)), and her admission of one prior conviction under the Three Strikes Law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)(d)). She was sentenced to the low term of three years in state prison on the transportation of a controlled substance charge, doubled under the Three Strikes Law, for a total of six years in prison. The sentence as to the possession of a controlled substance charge was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We appointed counsel to represent her on appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. Appellant's counsel advised her she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. On April 28, 2006, we advised appellant she had 30 days within which to file a supplemental brief. On May 31, 2006, appellant filed a supplemental letter brief and raised no arguable issues on appeal.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
KRIEGLER, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
MOSK, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Attorneys.
