Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF116426B, Richard J. Oberholzer, Judge.
Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 6, 2006, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information accusing appellant Christina Barle of felony transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)/count one); felony possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378, count two); felony possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a), count three); felony transportation of psilocybin (§ 11379, subd. (a)/count four); felony possession of psilocybin for sale (§ 11378, count five); and misdemeanor possession of narcotic paraphernalia (§ 11364, count seven).)
All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.
Count six pertained to co-defendant only.
The information also alleged Barle previously had been convicted of transportation of a controlled substance (§ 11379, subd. (a)) within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (c).
On December 12, 2006, the court entertained Barle’s motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995. The court dismissed count five, possession of psilocybin for sale (§ 11378). The court denied her request to dismiss counts one and four.
Barle filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 on February 9, 2007. The prosecutor filed an opposition on February 5, 2007, and Barle filed a reply on February 9, 2007. The motion was denied on February 15, 2007.
On March 23, 2007, Barle pled guilty to two felonies, possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378/count two) and possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)/count three). The court dismissed all remaining counts and allegations in the interest of justice.
On August 16, 2007, the court sentenced Barle to the middle term of two years for count two (§ 11378). Pursuant to Penal Code section 654 the court stayed an eight-month term (one-third the mid term of two years) on count three. The court also revoked probation in two other cases, the sentences to run concurrent to the sentence at issue here.
On August 23, 2007, Barle filed a timely notice of appeal.
As elicited from the People’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and the hearing stemming from Barle’s motion to suppress evidence.
On October 8, 2006, Bakersfield Police Officer Daniel McAfee was on duty with a partner when he pulled over a vehicle because it had no license plates in violation of Vehicle Code section 5200. Officer McAfee made contact with Barle, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, and Justin Pipkins, the owner and driver of the vehicle. Officer McAfee determined Barle was on probation and searched Barle, Mr. Pipkins and the vehicle. Officer McAfee found a plastic bag of what he believed to be psilocybin or magic mushrooms. He also found what he believed to be crystal methamphetamine between the passenger seat and the door. On the passenger floorboard he located a purse that contained a smoking pipe, Barle’s identification, and a coin purse that contained what Officer McAfee believed to be a usable amount of methamphetamine.
The matter was later tested and determined to be 11.32 grams psilocybin mushrooms.
The contents were later tested and determined to be 9.29 grams of methamphetamine.
The matter was tested and determined to be 1.71 grams of methamphetamine.
On January 24, 2008, Barle’s appellate counsel filed an appellant’s opening brief requesting us to conduct an independent review of the entire record and informing us she advised Barle of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. On January 28, 2008, we advised Barle she had 30 days within which to submit a letter stating any grounds of appeal she wanted us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Barle’s appellate counsel has complied fully with her professional responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.