Opinion
D052485
10-30-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN FRANCISCO MORENO, Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
Martin Francisco Moreno entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted a prior serious/violent felony conviction allegation (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) in exchange for dismissal of the balance of the information. The written plea agreement stated that the trial court would consider probation if Morenos codefendant and older brother accepted responsibility for the offense.
The trial court denied Morenos motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction allegation and sentenced him to 32 months in prison.
FACTS
On the evening of June 22, 2007, Chula Vista Police Department gang suppression officers watched a residence believed to have a high volume of gang activity. The officers observed a car parked near the residence drive away. The officers stopped the car for a traffic violation. The driver of the car was Alejandro Moreno, Morenos older brother. Moreno was sitting in the front passenger seat.
Because the brothers were documented Otay gang members, the officers asked the brothers to step out of the vehicle for a patdown. When Alejandro Moreno got out of the car, the officers saw two clear plastic bags containing a white crystal substance in plain view on the drivers side floorboard. The substance in the bags tested positive for methamphetamine and weighed 0.90 grams and 27.11 grams. In the opinion of a gang expert, the brothers were engaged in gang-related drug sales.
The officers arrested the brothers and during a search incident to the arrest found Moreno had $1,221 in cash. Moreno told officers he had just cashed his paycheck. As the brothers were being escorted to the police car, Alejandro Moreno told his brother: "Im sorry I got you into this."
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court 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 Morenos prior juvenile offense qualified as a prior strike conviction; (2) whether the court or Morenos counsel promised probation; (3) whether the motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction allegation was erroneously denied; and (4) whether various potential appellate claims would risk setting the plea aside, including the risk of being prosecuted again and receiving a greater sentence.
We granted Moreno 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 Moreno on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We Concur:
McCONNELL, P. J.
OROURKE, J.