From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hemmer

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Feb 29, 2012
B230424 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012)

Opinion

B230424

02-29-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIKE JOHN HEMMER, Defendant and Appellant.

Libby A. Ryan, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. LA064315)

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

Libby A. Ryan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mike John Hemmer appeals from a sentence of two years in state prison for illegal possession of a firearm by an ex-felon and possession of marijuana. On October 15, 2009, a search warrant was executed at appellant's residence. During the search, police officers located a .22-caliber revolver, a large amount of diverse ammunition, 14 gallon-sized plastic baggies containing marijuana, and numerous marijuana cigarettes. At trial, appellant stipulated to a prior felony conviction and admitted owning the gun. Appellant had a prescription for medical marijuana because of back problems, and the jury was specially instructed on the applicability of this fact. The jury convicted appellant of illegal possession of a firearm by an ex-felon and possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Appellant was sentenced to state prison for two years on the firearm violation. The trial court also imposed a concurrent sentence of 90 days for possession of marijuana.

After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, his court-appointed counsel filed an appellate brief raising no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On October 17, 2011, we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument he wished this court to consider. No response was received.

This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442. We agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MANELLA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

SUZUKAWA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Hemmer

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Feb 29, 2012
B230424 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Hemmer

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIKE JOHN HEMMER, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Feb 29, 2012

Citations

B230424 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012)