Opinion
A132092
12-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL G. CURIEL et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 1009018)
Fernando Lopez and Angel Curiel appeal from a judgment and sentence following no contest pleas and admissions to enhancements. Their court-appointed counsel have filed briefs requesting our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for appeal. Neither defendant has filed a supplemental brief. We conclude there are no issues that warrant review, and affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts are derived from testimony before the grand jury. On July 1, 2010, a Contra Costa County deputy sheriff was conducting surveillance of a home located at 3883 Los Palos Place in Pittsburgh. At approximately 11:30 a.m. defendant Curiel left the home and drove to a house in Berkeley. The deputy followed him. After the deputy observed what he believed to be a drug transaction occur at the Berkeley location, the deputy procured a search warrant for the home on Los Palos Place.
The search warrant was served later that day. Deputies found over thirteen pounds, or more than five kilos, of methamphetamine in the house and $102,000 in cash. Curiel was arrested in the driveway of the home. Lopez was found in a locked bathroom. A third person, Patricia Garcia was in bed with a baby in a back bedroom. She appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine. All three were arrested.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The grand jury of Contra Costa County returned a five-count indictment against Lopez and Curiel. Count one alleged possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Enhancements were alleged on count one as to each defendant due to the large quantity of methamphetamine involved. It was alleged the amount exceeded four kilograms as specified in section 111370.4, subdivision (b)(2), and because the amount exceeded 28.5 grams of methamphetamine and 57 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine the defendants were ineligible for probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.073, subdivision (b)(2).
The indictment also charged Patricia Garcia. She is not a party to this appeal.
All further unspecified statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
--------
Count two charged defendants with selling, distributing or transporting a controlled substance in violation of section 11379, subdivision (a). Count three alleged that Curiel transported methamphetamine in a false container in violation of section 11366.8, subdivision (a). Count four alleged that defendants violated section 11366 by maintaining a place for selling or using a controlled substance. Count five charged Lopez with child abuse or endangerment under Penal Code section 278a, subdivision (a).
Lopez entered no contest pleas to counts one, two, four and five of the indictment and admitted the truth of the quantity enhancements. He was sentenced to the midterm of two years in prison on count one, possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of section 11378. Lopez was given five additional years on count one due to the quantity enhancement specified in section 111370.4, subdivision (b)(2). He was given a one-year consecutive term in prison on count two, one-third the midterm sentence, for selling, distributing or transporting a controlled substance in violation of section 11379, subdivision (a). On each of counts four and five, he was given two-year terms to run concurrent to his sentence in count one for a total of eight years in prison. The court imposed a $1,600 restitution fine, a court security fee of $160, a court construction fee of $120 and a probation report fee of $176. He was awarded 562 days of presentence credits.
Curiel entered no contest pleas to counts one, two, three and four of the indictment and also admitted the enhancements. Curiel was also sentenced to the midterm of two years in prison on count one, possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of section 11378, and given an additional five years on count one due to the quantity enhancement specified in section 11370.4, subdivision (b)(2). He was given concurrent terms on the remaining counts: the low term of two years on count two; the midterm of two years on count three; and the midterm of two years on count four. Thus, his total sentence to state prison was seven years. The court imposed a $1,400 restitution fine, a court security fee of $160, a court construction fee of $120 and a probation report fee of $176. The court also imposed but suspended a parole revocation fine. He was awarded 562 days of presentence credits.
Both defendants timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Lopez and Curiel were each advised of the rights they would waive by entry of their no contest pleas and the potential consequences of their pleas. Each stipulated to a factual basis for his plea based upon the grand jury transcript and the police reports. The court found there was a factual basis for the pleas and that each was free and voluntary.
In light of the defendants' no contest pleas to all charges, the grounds for appeal are limited to those occurring after entry of the pleas. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304, subd. (b).) Accordingly, we have closely reviewed the sentences imposed for possible error.
There was no error in the sentences imposed by the court. However, as pointed out by his appellate counsel, Lopez's Sentence to State Prison appearing at pages 288 to 289 of the Clerk's Transcript, contains a typographical error. The sentence on count two should be corrected to reflect the trial court's imposition of the low term of one year consecutive to count one, rather than the midterm sentence.
Appellate counsel for both Curiel and Lopez represent that they each advised their client of his right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. Neither Curiel nor Lopez has done so. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to correct the Sentence to State Prison for Lopez to reflect the imposition of a one-year consecutive sentence on count two of the indictment, and to transmit the corrected Sentence to State Prison along with the abstract of judgment pertaining to Lopez to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgments are affirmed.
_____________
Siggins, J.
We concur:
_____________
Pollak, Acting P.J.
_____________
Jenkins, J.