P. v. Wheelock

Filed 2/22/07  P. v. Wheelock CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County.  Susan  D. Siefkin, Judge.

            Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

            On April  17, 2006, appellant, Douglas Cornelius Wheelock, entered a plea of guilty to possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, §  11350, subd. (a)).  Wheelock admitted a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law.  In exchange for Wheelock's plea, two misdemeanor counts were dismissed, as well as three other serious felony allegations and allegations that Wheelock served three prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

            The parties stipulated to a midterm sentence of two years doubled to four years pursuant to the three strikes law.^[1]  Wheelock requested immediate sentencing, waiving his right to have a probation report prepared.  The court sentenced Wheelock to prison for two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the three strikes law, imposed a restitution fine, and granted applicable custody credits.

FACTS

            The parties stipulated that there was a factual basis for Wheelock's plea.  The prosecutor stated the factual basis of the plea was that on April 7, 2006, Wheelock was stopped by the Modesto Police for a traffic violation.  There was a parole hold on him. Wheelock was searched incident to the arrest and found to possess a small eye dropper with liquid that later tested positive for heroin.

DISCUSSION

            Wheelock's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)  The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Wheelock was advised he could file his own brief with this court.  On August 3, 2006, we invited Wheelock to submit a letter stating any grounds on appeal he would want this court to consider.  To date, he has not done so.

            After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.

^*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Wiseman, J.

^[1]Wheelock received full admonitions concerning the consequences of his plea and was fully advised of his rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.  The parties also stipulated to a factual basis for Wheelock's plea.