Opinion
F063035 Super. Ct. No. VCF237883
06-22-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE TOBIAS ALVAREZ, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Darryl B. Ferguson, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On June 3, 2011, after the court stated an indicated sentence of five years, appellant, Jose Tobias Alvarez, Jr., pled no contest to transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior drug offense enhancement allegation (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)). On June 29, 2011, the court imposed a five-year prison term, consisting of the two-year lower term on the substantive offense and three years on the enhancement. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Insofar as the record reveals, he did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Except as otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
--------
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Instant Offense
The report of the probation officer states that according to Tulare County Sheriff's Department reports, the following occurred on May 30, 2010. At approximately 7:09 a.m., deputies executed a stop of a vehicle "with black tint on both the front driver and passenger windows." Appellant was the driver. After he indicated he did not have a driver's license, registration, or proof of insurance, "Dispatch" advised the deputies that appellant's driver's license had been suspended and that appellant "had an active warrant
Appellant was removed from the vehicle. A deputy conducted a pat-down search and "felt a large bulge in [appellant's] pockets." Appellant stated it was "money." It was "removed" and "a clear baggie was observed between the money that was folded in half." It was determined the baggie contained 6.8 grams of methamphetamine. A search of the vehicle produced a glass smoking pipe and two digital scales. Appellant admitted the methamphetamine was his, but denied ownership of the scales.
Appellant's Prior Drug Offense Conviction
Appellant was convicted of a violation of section 11379, subdivision (a) in 2010.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.