Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Ct. No. BA318015. David Mintz, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUBIN, J.
On the night of February 27, 2007, two undercover Los Angeles police officers in an unmarked car were parked in the parking lot of a McDonalds in order to stake-out drug sales. Raul Guevara parked his car next to theirs and they eventually saw Guevara retrieve a baggie with rock cocaine from inside his car’s gas cap and give it to Mary Cox. The officers then saw Cox run across the street and return with cash in hand. The officers approached Guevara’s car and saw that he had $40 cash in his hand and the baggie on his lap. A search located another $170 and more cocaine base, totaling 1.69 grams. No paraphernalia used to ingest drugs was found. Guevara was charged with one count of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and one count of transporting cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that Guevara was either out on bail or his own recognizance at the time. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.)
Guevara did not dispute that he possessed cocaine base, but contended it was for his personal use only, and not for sale. He contended that he had a glass pipe he used for smoking cocaine and that when he showed it to the officer, she smashed it. Both he and Cox testified accordingly at trial. Guevara claimed he merely shared his cocaine with Cox. Cox said Guevara offered money in exchange for sex, but did not sell her any drugs.
The jury apparently accepted Guevara’s version of events and, on count 1, found him not guilty of possessing cocaine base for sale and instead found him guilty of the lesser included offense of simple cocaine possession. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) The jury also found him guilty as charged on count two for transporting cocaine base. The court imposed a total sentence of five years.
Guevara filed a notice of appeal. On April 14, 2008, his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that he had reviewed the record and had sent Guevara a letter advising him that such a brief would be filed and that he could file a supplemental brief if he chose to. The next day, this court sent Guevara a letter advising him that a Wende brief had been filed and that he had 30 days to submit a brief raising any issues he wanted us to consider. He did not file a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: COOPER, P. J., BIGELOW, J.