Opinion
B267752
10-21-2016
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VERMERCEDES VAUGHN, Defendant and Appellant.
Nadezhda M. Habinek, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA422245) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jose Sandoval, Judge. Affirmed. Nadezhda M. Habinek, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
On April 24, 2014, following a preliminary hearing, defendant and appellant Vermercedes Vaughn was charged with selling marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a). A Pitchess motion was granted and several items of discoverable material were ordered disclosed to Vaughn.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
On August 28, 2014, Vaughn's counsel declared a doubt as to Vaughn's competency to stand trial and criminal proceedings were suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. On September 30, 2014, both parties stipulated to the report of Dr. Jack Rothberg finding that Vaughn was currently incompetent to stand trial due to his schizophrenia, but that he could become competent if provided with treatment, including the prescription of antipsychotic medication. Although the trial court issued an order that the medication could be given involuntarily if necessary, the records from Patton State Hospital (where Vaughn was sent for stabilization and restoration of competency) indicate that he took the prescribed medication voluntarily.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On July 29, 2015, Vaughn was certified competent to stand trial. A jury trial was then held in early October 2015, at which the following testimony was presented.
Los Angeles Police Department Detective Edgar Ramos testified that on March 6, 2014, he was working as part of an undercover narcotics street buy operation in Hollywood. Ramos approached Vaughn and asked if he had "a dime," street slang for $10 worth of drugs. Vaughn answered "yeah," asked Ramos for the money, and then told Ramos to follow him. The $10 bill Ramos handed Vaughn had been prerecorded. Vaughn entered a liquor store and picked up a blank lottery ticket. He then walked back outside and produced a black canister which contained a green leafy substance. Vaughn opened the canister, poured some of its contents onto the lottery ticket and handed the ticket to Ramos. Ramos walked away and signaled other members of his team to make an arrest.
Officer Dana Johnson was working as a uniformed "chase officer" that day, driving a marked police vehicle. Johnson detained Vaughn and searched him, recovering $17 (which included Ramos's prerecorded $10 bill) and a black canister containing a green leafy substance.
Criminalist Kevin Hollomon testified the substance Vaughn had given to Ramos contained .57 grams of marijuana, and the black canister contained .053 grams of marijuana.
Vaughn did not testify. The jury convicted him of selling marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Vaughn to two years in county jail pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), with presentence custody credits in the amount of 614 days.
We appointed counsel to represent Vaughn on appeal. After reviewing the record, 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. We directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Vaughn, and notified defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No supplemental brief was filed.
We are satisfied that appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278 ; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EDMON, P. J. We concur:
LAVIN, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------