From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Adams

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division
Apr 20, 2009
No. A122109 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN LEOPOLD ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant. A122109 California Court of Appeal, First District, Second Division April 20, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. CR062584, CR073883, CR081225

Lambden, J.

Appellant John Leopold Adams appeals two separate convictions in two separate felony cases, and an admitted probation violation in a third case, as authorized by Penal Code section 1237.5. Appellant’s appointed counsel identified no issues on appeal and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record and disposition of the case in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744.

BACKGROUND

Case No. CR062584

On May 2, 2006, the Humboldt County District Attorney filed a seven-count complaint against appellant for an incident that occurred on April 2, 2006. The submitted record relating to the events on April 2 is incomplete, thus this court relies on the brief factual summary provided to the trial court. On April 2, a Bureau of Land Management ranger stopped appellant’s vehicle for having no visible license plates. Appellant initially stopped, but then drove away, requiring the officer to pursue him. When appellant yielded, a search of his vehicle uncovered approximately $2,098, a scale, and various bags containing a total of approximately 63 grams of methamphetamine and approximately 18 grams of cocaine.

The May 2, 2006 complaint alleged one felony count of transporting cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), one felony count of possessing cocaine with intent to sell (§ 11351), one felony count of transporting methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)), one felony count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to sell (§ 11378), one felony count of evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), one felony count of possessing marijuana with intent to sell (§ 11359), and one felony count of transporting marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a). On August 10, 2006, prior to the preliminary hearing, appellant plead guilty to a lesser felony count of possessing cocaine (§ 11350), a misdemeanor charge of evading a police officer, and one felony count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378). The trial court dismissed the remaining counts on the People’s motion.

All further unspecified code sections refer to the Health and Safety Code.

On October 17, 2006, the trial court sentenced appellant to a state prison for three years and eight months; the court suspended the sentence and placed appellant on three years of formal probation. Per the terms of his probation, appellant was ordered to obey all laws and not traffic or possess any non-prescribed controlled substances.

Case No. CR073883

While appellant was on probation the Humboldt County District Attorney filed a new information in an unrelated case on August 29, 2007. The information alleged one felony count of transporting methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)), one felony count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378), one felony count of possessing oxycodone for sale (§ 11351), one misdemeanor count of possessing a smoking device (§ 11364), and one infraction of driving a vehicle without registration (Veh. Code, § 4000, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that a three-year narcotics conviction enhancement applied (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)).

Thereafter, on January 28, 2008, appellant entered guilty pleas to one felony count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378) and one felony count of possessing oxycodone for sale (§ 11351). Prior to accepting the change of plea, the trial court advised appellant of his Boykin/Tahl rights. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.) On the People’s motion, the court dismissed the remaining counts and the special allegation.

Case No. CR081225

Following a preliminary hearing on March 14, 2008, the Humboldt County District Attorney filed a new unrelated six-count information alleging that appellant committed one felony of transporting methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)), one felony count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378), one felony count of transporting cocaine (§ 11352, subd. (a)), one felony count of possessing cocaine for sale (§ 11351), one felony count of possessing oxycontin, hydrocodone, and dolophine (§ 11350, subd. (a)), and one felony count of possessing oxycontin, hydrocodone, and dolophine for sale (§ 11351). The information further alleged two three-year prior narcotics conviction enhancements (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)), as well as an enhancement for committing the new offenses while on bail. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.)

On May 8, 2008, appellant entered guilty pleas regarding one felony count of transporting methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)) and one felony count of transporting cocaine (§ 11352, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted one of the three-year prior narcotics conviction enhancements (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)). Prior to accepting the plea and admission of enhancement the trial court advised appellant of his Boykin/Tahl rights. Appellant indicated his understanding that he was entering his plea based on an agreement that he would receive a 10-year state prison sentence based on an aggregation of terms from this last case and the previous two cases discussed above. On the People’s motion the court dismissed the remaining counts and special allegations.

Previously, on February 20, 2008, the probation department had filed an amended probation violation notice alleging that appellant violated the above mentioned terms of his probation when he was arrested for the offenses charged in case Nos. CR073883 and CR081225. In the course of the proceedings on May 8, 2008, the court found appellant in violation of his probation.

After appellant entered his final guilty plea in the third case described above, and the court found him in violation of his probation, appellant agreed to be sentenced immediately on the understanding that his credits for time served would be calculated at a later date. Accordingly, the court imposed the agreed 10-year state prison sentence based on the pleas entered and the admissions in all three cases.

In case No. CR062584, the court suspended imposition of a $400 parole revocation fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.) In case No. CR073883, the court imposed a $400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and suspended imposition of a $400 parole revocation fine. In case No. CR081225, the court imposed a $1,600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and suspended imposition of a $1,600 parole revocation fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.)

Ultimately, on July 8, 2008, the probation department filed a report calculating appellant’s credit for time served and the court held a hearing on the same day and awarded appellant 380 days credit for time served. This timely appeal followed with reference to all three cases.

The facts underlying charges in each of the three cases were remarkably similar: In case No. CR062584, appellant was stopped by a Bureau of Land Management law enforcement officer after a short pursuit in connection with a traffic stop. He was subsequently apprehended by officers from a different police agency and a search of his vehicle uncovered a variety of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Additional quantities of drugs were found by a private citizen along the road where the police chase had occurred, and a passenger in appellant’s vehicle told the police that appellant had thrown the drugs out of the window during the pursuit.

In case No. CR073883, counsel stipulated to the factual basis for the guilty pleas in that case. The stipulation described that the vehicle driven by appellant was stopped because of an expired vehicle registration. After the investigating officer determined that appellant was on felony probation, the vehicle was searched and a large quantity of cash, and quantities of contraband substances were seized. The parties also stipulated that an expert would testify that the drugs found were in quantities indicating they were possessed for purposes of sale.

In case No. CR081225, the parties stipulated regarding the facts disclosed at the preliminary hearing. A Humboldt County deputy sheriff observed appellant behind the wheel of a parked vehicle and after determining that he was on probation, conducted a search of the vehicle. Inside the vehicle he discovered a large amount of currency, as well as drug paraphernalia and bags containing drugs. After he was placed under arrest and informed of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) appellant informed the arresting officer that he was trying to get rid of [the drugs found in his vehicle] for some money and that he had sold some before. Proof was offered that the substances found in the vehicle were the drugs alleged in the information and were of sufficient quantities to indicate they were possessed for sale.

DISPOSITION

Accordingly, we have reviewed the entire record in these proceedings and find no arguable issues. The record reflects that appellant was represented by counsel at all relevant times and that appellant was informed of his rights at all critical junctures. Substantial evidence supported the conviction with reference to all three proceedings, and it appears that the credit for time served and sentences were calculated in a proper fashion.

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur, Kline, P.J.Richman, J.


Summaries of

People v. Adams

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division
Apr 20, 2009
No. A122109 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Adams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN LEOPOLD ADAMS, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 2009

Citations

No. A122109 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2009)