Filed 6/5/13 P. v. Sazo CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERNEST SAZO,
Defendant and Appellant.
C071038
(Super. Ct. No. 11F01229)
About 1:00 p.m. on February 14, 2011, officers went to a residence to arrest
Rosanna Sazo. Officer Aaron Thompson saw
defendant Ernest Sazo walk quickly across the backyard toward a shed. Officer Thompson reported what he had seen to
Officer Brandon Hann. Officer Hann
approached the shed, found no one inside, but found defendant standing in the
two-foot space between the shed and the fence.
On the ground, a few feet away from where defendant had been standing,
the officer found a glass pipe for smoking methamphetamine and a black bag
under a lifter weight. In the black bag,
the officer found five baggies containing a total of over 23 grams of
methamphetamine, marijuana, two metal spoons, a pipe for smoking marijuana, a
writing pen, a blue canvas bag, a sunglass bag, and a total of 22 unused
baggies inside a larger baggie with an apple logo printed on it. On defendant’s person, the officer found
$1,351.63 in various denominations (eight $100 bills, six $50 bills, twelve $20
bills, ten $1 bills) and $1.63 in change.
An expert testified that defendant possessed the methamphetamine for
sale.
At trial,
the prosecutor was allowed to present evidence of subsequent uncharged
conduct. On May 6, 2011, in Yuba
County, defendant was found inside
the home of a parolee whose house was being searched. Defendant’s hand was inside a black bag which
contained over seven grams of methamphetamine in a baggie, numerous packaging
baggies, and a glass pipe for smoking methamphetamine. Within inches of the black bag, an officer
found a scale, more small baggies inside a larger baggie with an apple logo
printed on it, and about $100. On
defendant’s person, the officer found about $60. An expert testified the methamphetamine was
possessed for sale.
Defendant’s
nephew testified that the methamphetamine and marijuana found on February 14
belonged to him and was for his personal use.
A jury found
defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale. The court sentenced defendant to the upper
term of three years to be served in county jail.
Defendant
appeals. We appointed
appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979)
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the
communication from defendant.
While we
find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we find errors in the abstract of judgment. The trial court imposed penalty assessments
of $130 each on the “lab fee†and the “drug program fee.†However, the abstract of judgment fails to
note these two penalty assessments. We
therefore will remand the case to the trial court to correct the abstract of
judgment.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. The case is
remanded to the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment listing
the two penalty assessments of $130 each and to forward a certified copy of the
corrected abstract of judgment to the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
HULL , Acting P. J.
DUARTE , J.
