Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. INF054023, Jorge C. Hernandez and Stephen J. Gallon, Judges.
Judge Hernandez denied the motion to traverse the search warrant. Judge Gallon took the plea and presided over sentencing.
Craig C. Kling, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI J.
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted he had suffered two prior drug offenses and served a prior prison term. He was sentenced to nine years in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged in a first amended information with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and having suffered two previous drug offenses within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c). It was additionally alleged that he had served one prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant initially pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Defendant was additionally charged with cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358) and misdemeanor transportation of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (b)). The charges were dismissed prior to trial.
At the preliminary hearing, Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Mark Pereyda testified that he executed a search warrant at defendant’s residence in Coachella on March 30, 2006. In the residence, Deputy Pereyda and other officers found approximately 140 grams of methamphetamine, approximately 400 grams of marijuana, pipes used to smoke marijuana and methamphetamine, digital scales, and materials used to grow marijuana plants. They also found five marijuana plants growing in the backyard. Deputy Pereyda surmised, based on his training and experience, that the methamphetamine and marijuana were possessed for purposes of sales.
Defendant was inside the residence. He admitted to Deputy Pereyda that he was selling narcotics from this home. He also admitted that $10,079 in cash found in the home was made from narcotics sales.
Defendant brought a motion to traverse the search warrant that allowed the search of defendant’s home on the grounds that the affidavit in support of the search warrant included false statements and omitted certain material facts. According to the affidavit in support of the search warrant, a confidential informant had contacted the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force and agreed to conduct a controlled buy at a house in Coachella, which was determined to belong to defendant. The confidential informant was given money by Deputy Pereyda, who observed him walk into the apartment and then emerge without the money and in possession of heroin. The motion to traverse the search warrant was denied.
Defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to the charges. He agreed the maximum possible sentence was 10 years. Prior to sentencing, defendant sought to withdraw his plea. However, after the trial court agreed to give him increased conduct credits pursuant to Penal Code section 4019, he withdrew his request.
Defendant was sentenced to two years for the possession of methamphetamine for sale. In addition, he was given three years for each of the two prior drug offenses and one year for the prior prison term. All counts were ordered to run consecutive to each other. Defendant received a total sentence of nine years in state prison.
Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was initially denied by the trial court. This court reinstated the appeal on the grounds that an appeal from the sentence and motion to suppress evidence could be grounds for appeal.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (1996) 40 Cal.4th 106, we independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P.J., KING J.