P. v. Vasquez
Filed 10/18/06 P. v. Vasquez CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SIX
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREAS VASQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B190095 (Super. Ct. Nos. 1203944, 1206659) (Santa Barbara County)
|
Andreas Vasquez appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of transporting cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352.)[1] The trial court also found that Vasquez had violated probation in another case in which he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine and cocaine (§§ 11350, subd. (a), 11377, subd. (a)), and revoked his probation. In exchange for the dismissal of a charge of possessing cocaine for sale (§ 11351.5) on which the jury had failed to reach a verdict, Vasquez agreed to a sentence of three years in state prison on the section 11352 conviction. The court sentenced him accordingly, and also sentenced him to two years in state prison for each of the possession convictions, which were ordered to run concurrent to the three-year term.
We appointed counsel to represent Vasquez in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On August 22, 2006, we advised Vasquez that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. We have received no response from him.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Vasquez's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
COFFEE, J.
Brian E. Hill, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
[1] All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
