Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. F10901411. Don Penner, Judge.
Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.
Appellant, Mark Shannon Johnson, was charged by criminal complaint filed March 19, 2010, with felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1); possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count 2), a misdemeanor; and following another vehicle too closely (Veh. Code, § 21703; count 3), an infraction. In addition, it was alleged in the complaint that appellant had suffered a “strike.”
All references to dates of events are to dates in 2010.
We use the term “strike” as a synonym for “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.
On April 2, appellant pled no contest to the count 1 offense and admitted the strike allegation, and the court dismissed counts 2 and 3. Also, on April 2, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on two years’ Proposition 36 probation, i.e., probation under the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Pen. Code, § 1210 et seq.). On April 13, appellant filed an INVITATION TO STRIKE PRIOR SERIOUS FELONY CONVICTION, in which he “invite[d]” the court to strike his strike, pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. On May 7, the court, following a hearing, declined appellant’s invitation to strike appellant’s strike.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on May 13. He did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
Our factual statement is taken from a police report attached to appellant’s request that the court strike his strike.
A Fresno police officer stopped a car being driven by appellant, after observing appellant following too closely behind another vehicle. After making contact with appellant and running a records check which revealed that appellant was on misdemeanor probation and “open to search and seizure, ” the officer had appellant get out of the car, at which point the officer asked appellant if he had “anything illegal on his person.” Appellant said he did. The officer asked him what it was, and appellant said it was a pipe. The officer then searched appellant’s person and found a glass pipe and a small plastic bag containing what the officer believed was crystal methamphetamine. The officer placed appellant under arrest. Appellant admitted that the substance in the bag was methamphetamine.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.