Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. NA081617. Richard R. Romero, Judge.
Eric Cioffi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
Defendant and appellant Memorial Dinh appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1).)
At the preliminary hearing and Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, the People introduced evidence from the hearing on appellant's prior Penal Code section 1538.5 motion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subds. (j) and (p)) and called witnesses. The evidence was that police officers stopped appellant's car because a computer license plate check indicated that the registration was suspended. (The computer entry was alleged to have been inaccurate.) Because officers were concerned about appellant's movements in the car, he was asked to exit the car. He then gave the officers consent to search the car. The firearm was found in the trunk. Appellant was held to answer and his motion under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied. His no contest plea followed. He was placed on felony probation for three years and ordered to complete 60 days of Cal-Trans service. The firearm was ordered destroyed.
We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. On January 25, 2010, after examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. Counsel advised appellant that he could submit a supplemental brief on his own behalf. On January 29, 2010, we directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of appellant's opening brief to appellant immediately, and advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit by brief or letter any argument or contention he wished this court to consider. No response has been received from appellant to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MOSK, J., KRIEGLER, J.