Opinion
2d Crim. No. B231043 Super. Ct. No. 2010032835
09-28-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL MESA HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Peter Chang, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.
(Ventura County)
Daniel Mesa Hernandez appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). After appellant admitted five prison prior enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), the trial court struck three of the enhancements and sentenced appellant to four years state prison. Appellant was ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) and a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)).
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 August 12, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On September 12, 2011, we received a letter from appellant stating that his conviction violates the corpus delicti rule (see People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 403-404) and the trial court committed sentencing error.
The evidence shows that the Oxnard Police stopped a vehicle in which appellant was a passenger on September 12, 2010. The driver, Elsa Padilla, and appellant were under the influence of drugs. A baggie containing five smaller baggies of methamphetamine was in the driver's purse.
The driver (Padilla) told the officer that the mehtamphetamine belonged to appellant, that she was driving the vehicle for appellant, and that "we were headed up there to — for him to handle business."
Appellant was arrested, waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ), admitted ingesting methamphetamine, and claimed that he did not know about the drugs in Padilla's purse.
In a second Miranda interview, which was taped, appellant said that he put five bindles of methamphetamine in Padilla's purse, that the drugs were his and for personal use, and that he was taking the blame because he wanted to keep Padilla out of trouble.
Appellant's assertion that the evidence fails to establish the corpus delicti of the offenses, that the trial court committed evidentiary and sentencing errors, and that appellant was denied a fair trial is not supported by the record. (See e.g., People v. Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 404 [corpus delicti established by circumstantial evidence]; People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1102-1103 [application of ordinary rules of evidence to admit or exclude evidence does not infringe on defendant's due process right to fair trial]; People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 846-848 [Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b) permits sentencing court to consider full range of sentence; additional fact finding not required].)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with his 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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, Acting P.J. We concur:
COFFEE, J.
PERREN, J.
Kevin G. Denoce, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
Peter Chang, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.