Filed 12/12/18 P. v. Mooring CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL ELLIS MOORING, JR., Defendant and Appellant. |
A153806
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-121420-4)
|
A jury convicted Darrell Ellis Mooring, Jr. (Darrell) of five counts of possessing controlled substances for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351))[1] and one count of possessing a designated controlled substance for sale (§ 11375, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Darrell to 10 years in state prison, using count one (possession of dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin, § 11351) as the principal term. Darrell appealed. We reversed the conviction for count one and remanded for resentencing. In all other respects, we affirmed. (People v. Mooring (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 928, 932.)
At a February 2018 resentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Darrell to seven years in state prison, using count three (possession of codeine for sale, § 11351) as the principal term. The court imposed the middle term of three years, doubled pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.12. On count five (possessing methadone for sale, § 11351), the court imposed a consecutive one-year term, comprised of one-third the middle term. The court declined to apply Penal Code section 654 to the remaining convictions and imposed concurrent sentences on counts two, four, and six. The court also struck the sentencing enhancements for Darrell’s two prior drug-related convictions (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)).
Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and informed Darrell of his right to file a supplemental brief. Darrell has not filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) The court did not err by imposing the middle terms on counts three and five. (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893; People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1253.) The court did not err by declining to apply Penal Code section 654. (People v. Buchanan (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 603, 611.) The court properly struck the section 11370.2 enhancements. (People v. Grzymski (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 799.) Darrell was ably represented by counsel during the resentencing proceedings.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
Needham, J.
_________________________
Bruiniers, J.*
A153806
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. On our own motion, we augment the record to include the September 5, 2018 amended abstract of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.155(a)(1)(A); 8.340(a)(1), (c).)
