P. v. Bento
Filed 2/26/10 P. v. Bento CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD BENTO, Defendant and Appellant. | B217412 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA042620) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles A. Chung, Judge. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Kathleen Caverly, under appointments by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Richard Bento appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of selling/transporting/offering to sell a controlled substance, cocaine base, (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a))[1]and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) (d) and 667, subds. (b) (i)).[2] He was sentenced to prison for eight years, consisting of the middle term of four years, doubled to eight years by reason of his prior strike conviction. Pursuant to appellants motion to correct presentence custody credits, the minute order was amended to reflect the proper credits.
Appellants motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Penal Code section 859b on the grounds he was denied the right to a speedy preliminary hearing was denied.
Appellants Romero[3]motion was heard and denied.
The evidence at trial established that on June 27, 2008, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Daniel Inez was monitoring the activity at a massage parlor near the intersection of 10th Street West and Avenue I in Lancaster. While sitting in an unmarked vehicle with two other officers, Deputy Inez saw appellant drive a gold-colored Crown Victoria vehicle into a parking lot, circle around a portion of the lot, and park. Deputy Inez then observed James Fields, a local transient, walk up to the passenger side of the gold-colored car and appellant place in Fields open hand a white object. When Fields walked away, appellant circled through the parking lot and then exited.
Thereafter, other officers called to investigate the observed drug transaction saw Fields, upon seeing the officers, throw something to the ground. A plastic bag containing a white crystalline-type substance was retrieved and Fields was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. It was stipulated that the substance had a net weight of approximately .32 grams and contained cocaine in base form. The substance was a usable quantity. One of the officers testified that the exchange of money does not always have to be concurrent with the exchange of drugs.
When appellant was stopped driving the gold-colored Crown Victoria, he stated, Why did you stop me? I dont sell drugs. Appellant consented to a search of his vehicle and a small amount of marijuana and $21 were recovered.
After review of the record, appellants 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 December 1, 2009, 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 counsels 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; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P.J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J. SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The jury foreperson also signed the guilty verdict form on the lesser included crime of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), however, both counsel stipulated that the verdict on the greater count would prevail.
[2] The information alleged three prior convictions of serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law.
[3]People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
