Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Superior Court County of Los Angeles, Super. Ct. No. LA054656
Judy Fridkis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
YEGAN, J.
Mohammad Azadrad appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350(a).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that appellant had suffered a prior felony strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).) Appellant was sentenced to 32 months state prison and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8), a $50 lab fee plus a $85 penalty assessment (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), and a $20 DNA assessment fee.
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On January 28, 2008, we received a letter brief from appellant stating that a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) was erroneously denied, that the trial court erred in not requiring the prosecution to produce photos of the cocaine, that a translation error caused appellant to reject a plea bargain offer, and that the trial court relied on incorrect information at the sentencing hearing.
These contentions are not supported by the record. At the Marsden hearing, appellant stated that he was "not happy" with his court appointed attorney but made no showing that his attorney was not providing adequate representation or that appellant and his attorney were embroiled in an irreconcilable conflict. (People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1025-1026.)
The record further reflects that appellant was provided a Farsi interpreter at each court appearance and that appellant did not complain of translation problems.
During the trial, a three page lab report was received into evidence which included photographs of the narcotics.
With respect to appellant's criminal history, appellant's prior conviction records were received into evidence and a fingerprint expert testified that appellant's fingerprints matched the conviction records.
On January 29, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any further contentions that he wished to raise on appeal.
Appellant has not filed a brief or any other response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., COFFEE, J., Darlene Schempp, Judge