Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Margaret Miller Bernal, Judge, No. VA107843
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P.J.
Armando Roman appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, his guilty plea to carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code § 12020, subds. (a)(4)) and his admission that he served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to his negotiated plea, the prior prison term allegations were stricken and he was sentenced to prison for the middle term of two years.
Appellant’s Pitchess motion was granted with reference to complaints alleging the arresting deputies gave false information or made false reports, and following an in camera hearing the court concluded there were no discoverable items.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
According to the transcript of the preliminary hearing, on October 14, 2008, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Thiwong Maroj and his partner were on patrol on Perkins Avenue in Whittier when they observed movement in the back seat of a parked vehicle. When the officers approached to check the welfare of the occupant, appellant exited the vehicle. As appellant exited, he was told to keep his hands up. After getting permission from the officers to pull up his baggy pants, appellant raised his sweatshirt and in doing so revealed the handle of a knife in his right, rear pant pocket. The blade was approximately eight inches long, came to a point, and was sharp on both sides.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On May 11, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., MANELLA, J.