P. v. Savage

Filed 2/7/07  P. v. Savage CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Keith D. Davis, Judge.  Affirmed with directions.

            Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Defendant pled guilty to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and carrying a concealed dirk/dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)).  He further admitted having suffered a strike prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and having suffered a prior for which he served a prison sentence.  (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)  As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal.  He was sentenced to the agreed-to term of 5 years in prison.  His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court.

Facts

            On April 8, 2005, a police officer attempted to detain defendant, who was riding a bike without lights at night.  Although defendant initially ignored the officer, he eventually stopped, threw down his bike, and a partially unsheathed knife fell from his left hand.  In his pocket was found 0.19 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine.

Defendant's Appeal

Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him.  Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.  After defendant's brief was filed the California Supreme Court decided People v. Kelly (Nov. 27, 2006, S133114) __Cal.4th__ [2006 D.A.R. 15444].

            We invited defendant to submit a personal supplemental letter brief, which he has done.  In this eight and one-half page brief, defendant contends that he is being ineffectively represented on appeal because his appellate attorney, in filing a Wende brief, failed to appreciate â€