P. v. Hernandez
Filed 2/6/07 P. v. Hernandez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ORLANDO TOLEDO HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B189406 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.KA071505) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel J. Buckley, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Meredith Fahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Orlando Toledo Hernandez appeals from judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)).[1] A second count for destroying evidence in violation of Penal Code section 135, a misdemeanor, was dismissed. The court additionally found appellant had suffered a prior conviction of 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))[2] and served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[3] His motion for a new trial and Romero[4] motion were denied. He was sentenced to prison for a total of four years, consisting of the middle term of two years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The one year for the prior prison term enhancement was stayed.
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 October 31, 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.
Upon review, we observe that the trial court appeared to have sentenced appellant to an unauthorized sentence by ordering the one-year enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5 stayed. Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) â€
