Opinion
B204145
8-29-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN CLARK COLES, Defendant and Appellant.
Cynthia A. Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published
John Clark Coles appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).). Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for a period of three years under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36.
The record of the motion to suppress evidence established that on October 29, 2006, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Brandon Painter was on patrol on Sierra Highway when he observed appellant driving a vehicle without taillights. Deputy Painter conducted a traffic stop and as he approached appellants window observed, in the open portion of the center console, a small, plastic baggie containing a white crystalline substance resembling methamphetamine. During a search of appellant, the deputy recovered in appellants pocket another baggie containing a substance that also resembled methamphetamine.
Appellant filed a motion for discovery pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. The court ordered an in camera review of the deputys records limited to dishonesty in general, moral turpitude and fabrication. Following the in camera review, the court concluded there were no discoverable records.
After review of the record, appellants 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 April 22, 2008, 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.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
MANELLA, J. --------------- Notes: Penal Code section 1210.1.