P. v. Curtis
Filed 9/27/06 P. v. Curtis CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant. | B189486 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA287414) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sam Ohta and Frederick N. Wapner, Judges. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Ann Krausz, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Larry Curtis appeals from judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction for 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)) and served eight prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for the middle term of two years doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law plus an additional one year for one prior prison term enhancement for a total of five years. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, the court struck the seven remaining one-year enhancements.
After review of the record, appellant’s 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. By order filed August 23, 2006, this court augmented the record on appeal to include the reporter’s transcript of the in camera review (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) conducted on September 22, 2005, in Department 114 by the Honorable Frederick N. Wapner.
On June 27, 2006, 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, including the transcript of the in camera Pitchess review filed September 13, 2006, and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s 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.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
