Opinion
D073200
08-01-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW ALAN SIEVERT, Defendant and Appellant.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCE369026) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed. David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Matthew Sievert entered a guilty plea on August 29, 2017, to violating Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a) (sale of an analog of methamphetamine, MDMA, commonly known as Ecstasy). There was no sentencing agreement with the People and no offers from the court. At a contested sentencing hearing in October, the court denied probation, selected the mid-term of three years and imposed a "split" sentence of two years in local custody and one year of mandatory supervision in accordance with Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B) and subdivision (h)(1).
Appellate counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal and inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We offered Sievert the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he has not responded. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 25, 2015, Brandon Hilado called 911 from a motel in El Cajon requesting medical assistance for his girlfriend, Erin, who was nonresponsive after ingesting Orange Tesla, a "strong" form of Ecstasy. Paramedics arrived, rendered aid and transported Erin via ambulance to the hospital, where she died shortly thereafter. The Medical Examiner's report and the autopsy findings determined the cause of death to be "acute MDMA [methylenedioxymethamphetamine] toxicity." No other drugs or alcohol were present and the decedent was found to be an otherwise healthy 18-year-old woman.
The subsequent police investigation revealed that Hilado arranged to purchase Ecstasy from appellant, who, at an earlier chance meeting at the beach, had told Hilado and others that "if anyone needs a plug [a slang reference to drugs] [to] contact him." Following a series of about 80 text messages over five days, Hilado and Erin went to a parking lot near the hotel, where Hilado gave appellant $60 in return for two Orange Tesla pills, packaged in a "little baggie." Hilado and Erin went to the hotel, where each ingested one pill and Erin suffered the adverse reaction that led to her death.
Although it is not clear if Erin was present during the drug exchange, the context of the text messages make clear the appellant was aware that Hilado and his girlfriend were intending to engage in sexual intercourse and get "high on Ecstasy" that day. In the last few text messages, Hilado thanked appellant for the "quality shit" and appellant replied, "Dope right. . . . Anytime thank you!!!" When interviewed by DEA officers, appellant denied knowing Hilado, but when shown the text messages, he appeared "shocked." In his presentencing probation report, appellant denied being a drug dealer, indicated he was "helping [Hilado] out," described his crime as "minor" and considered himself a victim because the District Attorney's office was trying to make an example of him.
DISCUSSION
As noted, appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court, but presenting no argument for reversal and inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 368 U.S. 738, counsel listed as a potential issue whether the court erred when it "denied probation and sentenced appellant to the middle term in custody . . . because the drug sold by appellant caused the user to die from an overdose."
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal. 3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Sievert on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J. WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J. DATO, J.