Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. F07900544, David Andrew Gottlieb, Judge.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.
It was alleged in a criminal complaint filed January 18, 2007, that appellant Gerardo Bojorquez Cruz committed the following offenses: conspiracy to commit the crime of sale of methamphetamine (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1), Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 1), conspiracy to commit the crime of possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1), Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2), transportation of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 3) and possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 4). It was further alleged with respect to each of counts 3 and 4 that the weight of the contraband exceeded two kilograms (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (b)(1)), and that with respect to count 3 appellant did not transport the contraband for personal use within the meaning of Penal Code section 1210, subdivision (a).
On March 15, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled no contest to the count 4 offense and admitted the weight enhancement allegation, and the court dismissed counts 1, 2, and 3.
On December 21, 2007, the court imposed a prison term of four years four months, consisting of the 16-month lower term on the substantive offense and three years on the weight enhancement (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (b)(1)).
On January 9, 2008, appellant filed a notice of appeal and requested that the court issue a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). The court denied appellant’s request. On February 6, 2008, appellant filed an amended notice of appeal and again requested a certificate of probable cause. The court also denied this request.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
Our factual statement is taken from the report of the probation officer, which contains a factual statement based on a Fresno Police Department crime report.
On January 13, 2007, a confidential informant (CI) told Fresno police detectives he was going to drive to San Jose with Carlos Baez, who had agreed to introduce him to a methamphetamine supplier. The CI later called the detectives and told them he was in San Jose, Baez had introduced him to appellant and Rutillo Orozco, and appellant had stated the following: he was going to deliver 18 pounds of methamphetamine to the Los Banos area, five pounds of that shipment was “ready to sell,” the price was $11,500 per pound and more would be available for sale the following week. The CI and appellant agreed to complete the transaction on January 16, 2007.
On that day, the CI called the detectives and said that he had called Orozco and Orozco had stated “they were on their way to Fresno to complete the drug transaction.”
Later, undercover detectives met with the CI and appellant in a fast food restaurant parking lot just south of Fresno. Appellant stated “they were ready to complete the transaction” but he wanted to do so in an apartment, rather than the parking lot. The detectives “showed [appellant] the flash money,” and appellant stated “they were going to go to the apartment to view the methamphetamine.”
The CI and appellant then drove to an address on East McKenzie in Fresno where they picked up Ramon Valenzuela, who directed them to an apartment complex on North Eighth Street. Police detectives conducting surveillance observed the three men enter an apartment in the complex. A short time later, Jorge Lopez drove up and entered the apartment, and shortly after that the CI called the detectives and said he had seen six pounds of methamphetamine in the apartment.
At that point, detectives entered the apartment and took Jorge Lopez, Edgar Lopez, and appellant into custody. After the detectives obtained a search warrant, they found in the apartment 2,652 grams of a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine and 220 grams of a substance that tested positive for cocaine.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.