Opinion
C090527
06-16-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRAIG MATHEW BOURN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF187244)
Appointed counsel for defendant Craig Mathew Bourn asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2018, Woodland police officers conducted a search of defendant's home. In one of the bedrooms, they found a container with eight individual packages of methamphetamine with a total weight of approximately 240 grams. The officers also found additional packages of methamphetamine throughout the room, methamphetamine pipes, digital scales, and packaging materials. In total, officers found 246.4 grams of methamphetamine in the bedroom. A common dosage is 0.2 grams. The bedroom also contained paperwork for defendant's car. Defendant also had $300 in cash on his person. Based on this evidence, Officer Shad Begley, testifying as an expert in narcotics investigations for possession of methamphetamine for sale, concluded defendant possessed the methamphetamine for sale.
Defendant was charged with possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), with an enhancement allegation that he possessed more than 28.5 grams of methamphetamine for sale (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)). Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale, in exchange for a sentence of no state prison at the outset. On the People's motion, the trial court dismissed the enhancement allegation.
The trial court granted defendant probation, conditioned on serving 112 days in county jail with credit for time served. The trial court imposed various fines and fees, including a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and suspended an identical probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44, subd. (a)), a $40 court assessment fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 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.
/s/_________
BLEASE, J. We concur: /s/_________
RAYE, P. J. /s/_________
MURRAY, J.