Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. F075611
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Defendant Reginald Osmund Nash was charged by information with two counts of first degree robbery (counts 1 & 2; Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)); one count of kidnapping (count 3; § 207, subd. (a)); one count of first degree burglary (count 4; § 459); one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (count 5; § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (count 6; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5); and one count of possession of marijuana for sale (count 7; Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). Counts 1 through 4 were alleged to have taken place on September 4, 2007; counts 5 through 7 were alleged to have taken place on October 4, 2007.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The information also alleged the following enhancements: as to counts 1 through 3, personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); as to count 4, use of a firearm during the commission of a felony (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); as to count 6, a prior conviction for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)); and as to all counts, a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
A defense motion to sever the September counts from the October counts was granted. A first amended information was thereafter filed, alleging only the October counts, renumbered as follows: count 6 became count 1, count 7 became count 2, and count 5 became count 3. All enhancement allegations alleged as to these counts in the former information were realleged, as was the prior prison term.
After defendant’s motion to suppress evidence as to the counts alleged in the first amended information was denied, defendant pled no contest to count 1 (possession for sale of cocaine base) and admitted the Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 allegation, in return for a stipulated state prison term of seven years and the dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancements.
The trial court thereafter imposed the agreed sentence, consisting of four years for count 1 and three years consecutive for the enhancement. The court also imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine (suspended) (§ 1202.45), a $190 drug lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)), and a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)). The court awarded defendant credit for 522 days of presentence custody, including 348 days of actual custody and 174 days of local conduct credit.
According to the preliminary hearing transcript (the stipulated factual basis for defendant’s no contest plea), the facts relating to the October 2007 charges are as follows:
Defendant was a suspect in a robbery. Investigating the matter, police officers learned where he lived and were told that he was selling crack cocaine. On October 4, 2007, West Sacramento Police Detective Kimberly Parkman went to defendant’s residence, where she sat in a car and waited several hours for him to show up. When he appeared, walking toward his apartment and carrying a child, she approached him and determined his identity, required him to set down the child and a plastic bag he was holding, and arrested him. Searching the bag he had been carrying, she found a clear plastic baggie containing an off-white substance that tested positive for cocaine base and several baggies containing a green leafy substance that tested positive for marijuana.
A search of defendant’s apartment found a loaded.38 caliber revolver, a number of empty plastic baggies and others containing a leafy green substance, a scale with leafy green residue on it, and a shoebox full of money, along with indicia of defendant’s residence.
An officer testifying as a narcotics expert opined that the amount of cocaine base found on defendant would be possessed for sale. The presence of baggies, quantities of cash, and a scale in the person’s residence would support this opinion. Green leafy residue on the scale, along with baggies, would be consistent with the possession of marijuana for sale.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.