Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. LA054684 Richard H. Kirschner and Michael K. Kellogg, Judges. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JACKSON, J.
Defendant Thomas Terry Darnell pulled into a parking lot on January 23, 2007, and was approached by police officers who had noticed his van had no front license plate (Veh. Code, § 5200). Defendant appeared nervous and exhibited symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance, which appeared to the officers to be a central nervous system stimulant. The officers requested and received defendant’s consent to search his person, backpack and van. The officers found .91 grams of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the backpack. Defendant admitted to the officers the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia belonged to him. Defendant’s testimony corroborated that of the arresting officer.
Defendant was arrested and charged by information on May 16, 2007 with one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). His motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) was denied on May 16, 2007, after the trial court found defendant’s consent to search was valid.
On June 26, 2007, the trial court conducted in camera proceedings pursuant to defendant’s motion for production of documents under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 and Evidence Code section 1043 and found some discoverable material.
On October 9, 2007, jury trial commenced; defendant was convicted as charged. He was placed on three years probation under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On April 14, 2008, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.