P. v. Fuller
Filed 3/22/07 P. v. Fuller 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. WAYNE LAMONT FULLER, Defendant and Appellant. | A115461 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-483685) |
Wayne Lamont Fuller pled no contest to one count of possession of heroin, admitted two prior strikes, and was sentenced to four years in prison. Fullers counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Fuller has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
Background
The following facts are taken from the preliminary hearing.
On March 13, 2006, Petaluma police officer Matthew Stapleton was in a car in the parking lot of a supermarket in Petaluma. A red car pulled into the space next to him. Stapleton saw the driver, later identified as Fuller, and the passenger unwrap what Stapleton believed to be methamphetamine. He also saw Fuller handling a spoon and both occupants handling other drug paraphernalia.
Stapleton radioed for a uniformed officer. The officer approached the drivers window and ordered both occupants to put their hands on the dashboard. They initially complied, but then Stapleton saw Fuller place an unwrapped package in his mouth and swallow its contents.
A search of the car disclosed a spoon with a chunk of heroin on it, another chunk of heroin in a small tin container, and a variety of drug paraphernalia.
Fuller was charged by information with possession of heroin (Health and Safety Code, 11350, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine (Health and Safety Code, 11377, subd. (a)), misdemeanor destruction of evidence (Pen. Code, 135), misdemeanor resisting arrest (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor possession of a hypodermic needle (Bus. & Prof. Code, 4140). It was also alleged that Fuller had suffered two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, 1170.12) and had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Fuller waived his constitutional rights, pled no contest to possession of heroin, and admitted the two strike priors. On the prosecutions motion, the court dismissed the remaining charges and enhancement allegations. At sentencing, the trial court struck one of the prior strikes in the interest of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. The court sentenced Fuller to four years in prison, calculated as the midterm, doubled because of the remaining strike. The court awarded Fuller a total of 297 days of presentence custody credits, consisting of 198 actual days of custody and 99 days of conduct credits.[1]
Discussion
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. Fuller was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. Before he entered his plea, he signed a written waiver of his constitutional rights and acknowledgement of the direct consequences of his plea. Fuller knowingly and voluntarily pled no contest to the charge of possession of heroin. The court read and considered the presentencing report, heard argument from counsel, and sentenced him in accord with his plea agreement. Subsequently, the trial court corrected an error it made in calculating presentence custody credits.
Appellate counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to the courts attention any issue he believed deserved review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Fuller did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
GEMELLO, J.
We concur.
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
NEEDHAM, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] Originally, the trial court erroneously awarded only 237 days of presentence custody credits, reflecting 39 days of local conduct credits, but on January 9, 2007 the court amended the abstract of judgment to correct that error, awarding 99 days of conduct credit. (See People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1282.)
