From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ackles

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 18, 2008
No. D051040 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARY A. ACKLES, Defendant and Appellant. D051040 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division January 18, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. SCD200527, William H. Kennedy, Judge.

McCONNELL, P. J.

A court convicted Mary Ackles of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and found she had a prior conviction for selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)) and a strike prior for a 1987 involuntary manslaughter conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12). The court struck the Health and Safety Code, section 11370.2, subdivision (a) allegation and the strike prior and sentenced her to prison for a middle term of four years. Ackles appeals. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

An officer in an undercover "buy-bust" operation saw William Exum hand an "off-white rock substance" to Ackles, who turned and dropped it into another person's hand. The officer approached Ackles and stated she "wanted some," and wanted "a 20," which is street slang for $20 of cocaine base. Ackles grabbed a pre-recorded $20 bill from the officer, said "[h]ere," and dropped a usable piece of cocaine into the officer's hand. Ackles then walked to Exum and engaged in a "hand-to-hand" transaction. Officers took Ackles and Exum into custody and found Exum with the pre-recorded $20 bill, six pieces of cocaine base, and drug paraphernalia. After waiving her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, Ackles stated another woman sold the officer "the dope." Ackles indicated she "just had one piece." After further questioning, Ackles stated "I don't remember. I'm on psych meds. I take Benadryl and Seroquel. Can't I make a deal and go home?"

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, whether Ackles: (1) was competent to stand trial; and (2) knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her right to a jury trial.

We granted Ackles permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Ackles has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J., IRION, J.


Summaries of

People v. Ackles

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 18, 2008
No. D051040 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Ackles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARY A. ACKLES, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Jan 18, 2008

Citations

No. D051040 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2008)