From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bailey

Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Shasta.
Nov 13, 2003
C043216 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2003)

Opinion

C043216.

11-13-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES CHARLES BAILEY, Defendant and Appellant.


Following the denial of defendant James Charles Baileys motion to suppress evidence, a jury found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale, transportation of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and obstructing an officer in the performance of his/her duties. Defendant admitted two prior drug convictions and the service of two prior prison terms.

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of 12 years. The court imposed restitution fines of $2,400 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 and a criminal laboratory analysis fee of $135, which included penalty assessments.

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 elapsed, and we 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: BLEASE, Acting P.J., and RAYE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Bailey

Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Shasta.
Nov 13, 2003
C043216 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Bailey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES CHARLES BAILEY, Defendant…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Shasta.

Date published: Nov 13, 2003

Citations

C043216 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2003)