Opinion
A151876
02-01-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VERNARD BAILEY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 17NF000617A)
Following defendant's plea of no contest to possession of a controlled substance for sale and admission of a controlled substance enhancement and a prior strike conviction, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in state prison. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Because defendant pled no contest before trial, we briefly summarize the facts taken from the preliminary hearing transcript
Officers Bardina and Venikov of the San Mateo Police Department made contact with Matthew Dominguez on January 12, 2017, and placed him under arrest for possessing "suspected" methamphetamine. Dominguez provided the officers with the phone number of defendant, his methamphetamine supplier. Over several days, the officers made phone and text contact with defendant in an attempt to set up a purchase of methamphetamine. On January 15, defendant and the officers agreed to meet at a Taco Bell. Upon meeting with defendant, the officers identified themselves, and Venikov searched defendant's person, but failed to find anything of significance. Eventually, Bardina conducted a search of the Cadillac vehicle in which defendant arrived, and found a small bindle of suspected methamphetamine, later identified by a county crime lab criminalist as 2.046 grams of methamphetamine, a usable quantity. After Officer Bardina was qualified by the court as an expert in the area of possession for sale of methamphetamine, he opined defendant possessed for sale the methamphetamine discovered in the Cadillac.
An information was filed charging defendant with one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) As to this count, it was alleged defendant suffered two prior convictions for possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352), and a strike conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Lastly, the information alleged defendant was ineligible for probation. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4).)
Pursuant to a later plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to possessing methamphetamine for sale, admitted the prior strike conviction, and admitted the two prior possession for sale of a controlled substance convictions under Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11). The plea agreement provided defendant would receive no more than 32 months in state prison, and the court would consider his Romero motion.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), the information again alleged defendant committed the same two prior convictions of possession of a controlled substance for sale. Those allegations were dismissed by the prosecutor.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). --------
Before sentencing defendant at a subsequent hearing, the court considered his Romero motion, and exercised its discretion by striking defendant's prior strike conviction. The court then denied probation and sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in state prison with credit for time served of 245 days.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence and other matters occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case, but advising the court under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, no issues were found to argue on defendant's behalf. Counsel has also apprised this court in his declaration that defendant has advised him the "sentence of one year and four months was acceptable and that [defendant] did not want any further proceedings in the trial or appellate court." Though defendant has indicated through his counsel he does not wish to pursue his appeal, we have nonetheless, as directed in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, reviewed the entire record ourselves to determine if any arguable issue is present. We have found none.
Defendant was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. We find no meritorious sentencing issues requiring reversal of the judgment. We therefore agree with defendant's counsel that no issues are present that could undermine defendant's no contest plea.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Margulies, J. We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P.J. /s/_________
Banke, J.