P. v. Anderson
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSHDEE ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant. | B191385 ( Super. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark Arnold, Judge. Affirmed.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Rushdee Anderson appeals from judgment entered following revocation of probation and execution of his previously stayed four-year prison term. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, he previously pled no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale, count 1, (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and obstructing or resisting executive officers in the performance of their duties, count 4, (Pen. Code, § 69). In exchange, the court dismissed the charge of battery upon a police officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b)), possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)), and the allegation that he suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370, subdivisions (a) and (c).[1]
Appellant moved to withdraw his plea upon the grounds that he did not knowingly and intelligently enter into the plea agreement because it was not fully explained to him. Additionally, he maintained that he was not receiving appropriate psychiatric medication at the time of his plea, which affected his ability to enter into the agreement. The motion was heard and denied.
Appellant was sentenced to prison for the middle term of four years. Execution of the sentence was suspended; and he was placed on formal probation for three years upon various terms and conditions, including that he serve 365 days in county jail, not use or possess any narcotics or restricted drugs, submit to anti-narcotic tests as directed by the probation officer and enroll in an out-patient drug treatment program.
Thereafter, the People filed a request for revocation of probation. It was alleged that appellant violated his probation by committing a new crime, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a), transporting marijuana.
Prior to the hearing on the probation violation, appellant filed a motion for pretrial discovery pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 535. The motion was granted in part. Following an in camera hearing, the court concluded there was nothing discoverable.
Appellant's motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d. 118 to relieve his attorney was denied.
Following a contested hearing, the court found appellant in violation of probation in that he was continuously using drugs, testing positive at the random drug tests and never enrolling in a drug program.[2]
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.
On
We have examined the entire record, including the sealed transcript of the Pitchess hearing, 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
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 pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
[1] According to the transcript of the preliminary hearing, on
