Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. SCD202126 Michael T. Smyth, Judge.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
A jury convicted Rodney Edwards of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Subsequently, Edwards admitted an enhancement allegation that he had previously been convicted of a drug offense specified in Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c). Edwards also admitted he had served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Edwards to five years in prison—the middle term of two years for the current possession for sale count and a consecutive three-year enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c). The court struck the two prior prison term allegations.
FACTS
On October 10, 2006, San Diego police officers searched the apartment that Edwards shared with two other individuals. Edwards was the only inhabitant present at the time of the search. In the bedroom, police found a black briefcase which contained a small can of foot powder with a false compartment; inside the compartment was a baggie of crystalline methamphetamine. Police also found Edwards's wallet containing his identification and $1,302, a jewelry box, which contained methamphetamine, another jewelry box, which contained a white residue, two digital scales with white residue, approximately 20 plastic baggies commonly used to package small amounts of narcotics, and a spoon with residue on it. The total weight of the methamphetamine seized was 12.9 grams. An undercover police officer testifying as an expert witness opined that given the amount of methamphetamine found and the presence of packaging materials, among other things, that Edwards possessed the methamphetamine for sale.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court erred by restricting cross-examination of a police officer who did not attempt to find fingerprints on the foot powder can; (2) whether the court erred when it sustained the prosecution's hearsay objections to cross-examination seeking to establish that Edwards was a skilled craftsman and had no need to sell drugs to make money; (3) whether the court erred in admitting, over a hearsay objection, the criminalist's lab analysis report after the criminalist testified to its contents; (4) whether the court erred by allowing the narcotics expert to testify, over relevance objections, about convincing a drug dealer to "feel safe" with selling him one-half of an ounce of methamphetamine; and (5) whether the court erred and abused its discretion when it allowed the expert to testify, over relevance and Evidence Code section 352 objections, that in the approximate 10 times he has made undercover buys, the seller typically has only small amounts in his possession.
We granted Edwards permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Edwards on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J. HALLER, J.