Opinion
A102293.
10-27-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD ANTHONY CARNEY, Defendant and Appellant.
Edward Carney appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon the jurys verdict of guilty. Appellants court appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
An amended information filed in Solano County Superior Court charged appellant with the sales of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352). The information further alleged that appellant suffered three prior drug-related felony convictions, each a sentencing enhancement (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)), and served two separate prior prison terms, each also a sentencing enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
The jury found appellant guilty as charged (§ 11352). Appellant then waived his right to have the jury decide the truth of the alleged sentencing enhancements, and the court found each alleged enhancement to be true (§ 11370.2, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
The court sentenced appellant to the middle term of four years in state prison for the sales of cocaine (§ 11352). The court enhanced the term by three years for each of two prior convictions for a drug-related felony (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)) and struck the remaining enhancement for a similar conviction (& sect; 11370.2, subd. (a)). The court also enhanced the term by one year for each of appellants two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Thus, the aggregate term totaled 12 years in state prison. The court granted appellant 704 days total presentence credit and ordered him to pay a $1,500 restitution fine.
Prosecution Case
On September 12, 2001, narcotics officers from the Solano County Police Department were engaged in an undercover attempt to disrupt hand-to-hand purchases of drugs from the parking lot beside Cals Liquors in Vallejo. Officer David Adams, who was in charge of the operation, gave Officer John Udall an electronic transmitting device, known as a wire, and $20 in currency in order to facilitate the arrest of drug sellers. Adams then drove around the area of the liquor store, monitored radio traffic and made sure that all the other officers involved in the operation were in their proper positions.
Udall drove to the liquor store in a white van and saw appellant on a bicycle. The officer approached appellant and asked to buy $20 worth of drugs. Appellant went to Udalls van and asked the officer why he was unfamiliar to him. Udall reiterated that he wanted $20 worth of drugs. Appellant eventually went to his mouth and pulled out two plastic bindles of suspected base cocaine. He handed the bindles to Udall, and in exchange, the officer handed appellant $20. Udall then drove away from the parking lot while broadcasting a description of appellant to backup officers via his wire.
Udall met Adams at a separate location and gave him the suspected base cocaine purchased from appellant. Adams secured the contraband and booked it into evidence at the narcotics division of the police department. Joaquin Jimenez, a forensic toxicologist, eventually tested the contents of one of the bindles purchased from appellant and confirmed that it was in fact base cocaine. He estimated the weight of both bindles obtained from appellant to be .33 grams.
Although he was detained for the purpose of identification, appellant was not arrested on the evening of the incident. The Solano County Sheriffs Department made the arrest on December 20, 2001.
The undercover police officers videotaped the transaction between appellant and Udall as it occurred. On the videotape, which was played for the jury, it is apparently impossible to tell what is exchanged between appellant and Udall, although some sort of transaction is apparent. Udall and the officer who made the videotape, Thomas Martin, attested that the tape played for the jury was an accurate representation of what occurred between appellant and Udall at Cals Liquors on September 12.
Once the jury found appellant guilty of the present offense, the prosecution submitted several documents, including two abstracts of judgment showing that appellant had been committed to state prison on two separate occasions and that one of the commitments was for three counts of the transportation or sales of a controlled substance (§ 11352). The court then found all the alleged special allegations to be true.
Substantial evidence supports the jurys verdict and the courts findings.
The jury was properly instructed.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
There was no sentencing error.
There are no issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Haerle, Acting P. J. and Lambden, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.