From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fisher

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Feb 2, 2012
B227141 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)

Opinion

B227141

02-02-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS FISHER, Defendant and Appellant.

Kari E. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA365728)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leslie A. Swain, Judge. Affirmed.

Kari E. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Louis Fisher of one count of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). He admitted one prior strike allegation (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b) - (i), 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d)). The trial court denied his motion to strike that allegation, and sentenced him to six years in prison (double the low term of three years). The court stuck a prior prison term allegation (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and on the prosecution's motion dismissed all remaining allegations, which included allegations of two additional strikes. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction.

BACKGROUND

Prosecution Evidence

On December 11, 2009, around 5:50 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Hector Diaz, working undercover, approached defendant and another man, Robert Harrison, who were standing on 5th Street, near the intersection with Los Angeles Street in downtown Los Angeles. Officer Diaz asked for "a dime." Defendant told Officer Diaz to walk with him, and they stepped back from the curb. Harrison remained where he was, appearing to act as a lookout.

Defendant asked for money, and Officer Diaz gave him a premarked $10 bill. Defendant handed him an off-white solid, which was later tested and determined to contain 0.05 grams of cocaine. Officer Diaz walked away and signaled other members of the undercover team who were in the area that the transaction was complete.

Meanwhile, defendant returned to where Harrison was standing, and handed him something which Harrison received with his right hand. Uniformed officers then took defendant and Harrison into custody. The premarked $10 bill was recovered from Harrison's right hand. Defense Evidence

Harrison testified that he saw Slim, a man who owed him $20, on the street. Harrison asked for the money, and as he and Harrison walked, Slim handed him a $10 bill. Suddenly police officers detained them and some other men, including defendant. Harrison did not know defendant or have any contact with him, and did not see defendant engage in a narcotics transaction. He met defendant for the first time in court when they were charged as codefendants. Harrison had previously been convicted of three prior narcotics sales offenses in 2009, 2008, and 2007.

DISCUSSION

After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Defendant filed a supplemental letter brief, in which he asserted, in substance, that the prosecution failed to provide discovery of information of four individuals allegedly detained with him, and that one of those persons, Christopher Douglas, was with him on the night of his arrest. However, a discovery compliance hearing was held on May 17, 2010, at which Officer Diaz testified that only defendant and Harrison were involved in the transaction. Defense counsel did not object that the prosecution had failed to provide discovery. And although Harrison testified at trial that others were detained with him and defendant, the prosecution's evidence showed that only defendant and Harrison were present in the area of the transaction and were the only ones detained. The record does not support any claim that the prosecution withheld discovery.

We have examined the entire record, including the record of the in camera hearing held on defendant's Pitchess motion, and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

___________

WILLHITE, J.
We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

SUZUKAWA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Fisher

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Feb 2, 2012
B227141 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Fisher

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS FISHER, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

Date published: Feb 2, 2012

Citations

B227141 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)