Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 05WF3628, Richard M. King, Judge.
Marylou Hillberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
ARONSON, J.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant Elias Fierro on appeal. Counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised the court she found no issues to present on his behalf. We provided defendant 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him.
After examining the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we conclude there are no arguable issues warranting further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm.
An information filed July 10, 2006, charged defendant with sale or transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); all statutory references to this code unless noted), possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378), possession of Vicodin (§ 11350, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, all occurring on December 22, 2005. It also alleged he had suffered a previous a drug-related conviction (§ 11370, subd. (c) [probation ineligibility]) and a serious/violent conviction under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1)).
According to evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, on December 22, 2005, a Garden Grove police officer saw defendant exit a residence at 13201 Nina Place carrying a briefcase. Defendant and several other people lived at the location. Defendant drove away in a Dodge van. The officer detained defendant and found a 1.2 gram bindle of methamphetamine in defendant’s briefcase and a single Vicodin (contains hydrocodone) tablet in a toolbox in the van. Officers then searched a Ford automobile registered to defendant parked in the driveway of the Nina Place residence. In the trunk, they found a Ziploc bag containing 106.2 grams of methamphetamine in a sock under the carpet, two digital scales, packaging materials, and three methamphetamine pipes. The officer opined the drugs in the Ford were possessed for sale.
Defendant moved to set aside the information (Pen. Code, § 995) based on insufficient evidence of possession and knowledge concerning the Vicodin and the methamphetamine found in the Ford. He also moved to traverse a search warrant and discover the identity of a confidential informant. The court denied the motions.
On November 28, 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to the charged counts. Defendant provided the following factual basis: “In Orange County, California, on 12-22-05 I willfully and unlawfully transported a controlled substance, to wit[:] methamphetamine and I possessed 106 grams of a controlled substance, to wit: methamphetamine for the purpose of selling it and I possessed a controlled substance, to wit: Vicodin and I possessed a pipe for smoking controlled substances and I was convicted of [Penal Code section] 215[, subdivision] (a) a serious and violent felony on 12-10-97 . . . and also [Health and Safety Code section] 11350[, subdivision] (a) on 6-20-96.” Defendant acknowledged a possible sentence of over 10 years, but the court represented it would consider his application for probation and the sentence would not exceed six years.
The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike his Three Strikes prior conviction, denied a request for probation, struck for sentencing purposes the section 11370, subdivision (c) allegation and imposed a six-year prison term (double the three-year midterm) for possession of methamphetamine for sale and concurrent sentences for the remaining counts. The court granted custody and conduct credits of 757 days. The court imposed a $200 restitution fine and ordered him to register as a narcotics offender (§ 11590) and submit to DNA testing (Pen. Code, § 296). The court subsequently denied a request for a certificate of probable cause.
Counsel suggests we examine several potential issues in conducting an independent review. We have considered these issues and find no arguable issue. Defendant’s guilty plea waived any claim of error when the trial court denied defendant’s motions to disclose the confidential informant and dismiss the information. The court correctly denied defendant’s motion to traverse. The court found defendant’s testimony lacked credibility and probable cause supported issuance of the warrant even if the alleged misrepresentations were omitted. (Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154.) Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to strike a Three Strikes law prior. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.)
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., MOORE, J.