Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 62-082696
BUTZ, J.Roseville Police Officer Carlos Cortes saw a car driving with no license plates, in violation of the Vehicle Code. He stopped the vehicle and asked both the driver, David Hamilton, and the passenger, defendant Scott Miller Anschuetz, for identification. Within a few seconds, Officer Cortes confirmed defendant had a warrant for his arrest. He asked defendant to step out of the car and placed him under arrest. He then asked Hamilton if he could search the car and Hamilton agreed. He asked defendant if anything in the car belonged to him and defendant replied his backpack was in the front passenger side of the car. Another officer arrived at the scene, with a canine unit. The dog had special training in narcotics and alerted on defendant’s backpack. Inside the backpack was methamphetamine and a pipe.
Defendant was charged with transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), possession of methamphetamine (id., § 11377, subd. (a)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (id., § 11364). It was also alleged defendant had served five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and been convicted of three prior drug offenses (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)).
On September 29, 2008, defendant made a motion to suppress evidence. The motion was denied. On November 6, 2008, defendant then made a Marsden motion, which also was denied. On January 8, 2009, criminal proceedings were suspended for a determination of defendant’s competency to stand trial. On January 23, 2009, defendant was found competent and proceedings were reinstated. The parties then reached a resolution to the criminal matter. Defendant would plead no contest to transporting methamphetamine and would receive a low-term sentence of two years in state prison, to be run concurrently with any parole violation. Defendant entered the plea and was sentenced in accordance with the stipulated term. He was awarded presentence credit of 173 actual days, 86 conduct, for a total of 259 days.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., SIMS, J.