Opinion
2d Crim. No. B234370
12-22-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. LA067178-01)
(Los Angeles County)
Randy Daniels appeals from the judgment entered after his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and his admission that he had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § subd. 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed the upper term of three years, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement. It suspended execution of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for three years.
On February 13, 2011, two police officers were patrolling an area known for narcotics and gang activity. At 11:55 p.m. they saw appellant and another man standing in a stall in a coin-operated car wash, which was closed. They were facing each other and made a hand-to-hand gesture as if they were passing narcotics. The officers pulled into the car wash. As they left their car, appellant and the man began hugging. The officers immediately detained them. Officer Jesse Martinez then asked appellant if he was on probation or parole, and appellant responded that he was on parole. Martinez next asked appellant what he was holding in his right hand. He opened his hand, revealing two small pieces of cocaine.
Appellant filed a suppression motion, asserting that he was unlawfully detained. The court denied the motion on the ground that the detention was reasonable. Appellant challenges this ruling.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On August 19, 2001, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished to raise on appeal. We have received no response from him.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Mitchel Block, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.