Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 09CF2941, Gary S. Paer, Judge.
Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
BEDSWORTH, J.
Appellant Anthony Dickson was convicted by a jury of one count of possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Allegations of two prior drug convictions and one state prison conviction were found to be true, and he was sentenced to the low term of three years in state prison for the cocaine base, an additional year for his state prison prior, and a concurrent two years for the simple possession count.
The facts of the case were straightforward. A police officer stopped Dickson for a traffic violation, found out he was on parole for drug offenses, searched his car and found the contraband that formed the basis for the charges against him. Dickson admitted the drugs were his, but denied intending to sell and insisted what was found in his car was for personal use. His testimony was undercut somewhat by the fact the drugs found on him were individually wrapped in several small packets and a pay/owe notebook with his email address on it was found in the car.
Dickson appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised this court she could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and the only points counsel could imagine would support an appellate issue. Dickson was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf but no brief was filed.
We have considered the points raised by counsel, and have scoured the record – including the transcript of trial testimony – for other possible issues. We agree with appellate counsel that the sentencing in the case was not legally objectionable. Nor do we see any basis for an appeal based on the fact a credit card recovered from Dickson’s car bore someone else’s name. The credit card was introduced, but never discussed in testimony and never mentioned in closing argument. Without the suggestion it was stolen or used for some improper purpose, its unremarked introduction into evidence could hardly support an assignment of error.
Nor do we find any other problematic areas in the trial. There was one contretemps about alleged suggestions by the prosecutor that Dickson had prior convictions for drug sales, but the trial court resolved that in Dickson’s favor and, in an abundance of caution, provided a curative instruction for the jury.
For several reasons we see no reason to catalogue, this was a strong case for the prosecution. We find ourselves in agreement with appellate counsel that there are no appellate issues with a reasonable prospect of success with respect to Dickson’s guilt or the judgment imposed upon him. The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., MOORE, J.