People v. Chipley

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASEY THEADORE CHIPLEY, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte

Date published: Sep 17, 2007

No. C055195 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2007)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASEY THEADORE CHIPLEY, Defendant and Appellant. C055195 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Butte September 17, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CM026552

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

On January 11, 2007, undercover officers learned that an individual by the name of “Casey” sold marijuana and Ecstasy from a particular address in Chico. A records search revealed that defendant Casey Theadore Chipley lived at the address and was on probation with a search condition. Officers also learned that Erica Baker lived at the address and that she had a “stay-away” order against defendant. Officers went to the address and detained defendant. A search of the residence revealed five glass jars containing a total of almost seven ounces of marijuana, a baggie with .06 ounces of marijuana, a baggie with .1 gram of methamphetamine, a baggie with Ecstasy pills, two glass smoking pipes and a metal sifter. Defendant admitted that he planned to sell the marijuana and claimed that the three Ecstasy pills and methamphetamine were for personal use. He admitted knowing about the stay-away order but claimed he and Baker had recently reunited.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and disobeying a protective order, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts -- cultivation of marijuana, possession of Ecstasy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia.

The court imposed the midterm of two years for possession of marijuana for sale and a concurrent one-year county jail term for disobeying the court order.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).

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: HULL, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.