Opinion
A134213
05-31-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHAN EUGENE JONES, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-111646-6)
Nathan Eugene Jones appeals from a judgment upon his plea of no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, see now § 29800, operative Jan. 1, 2012). His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On October 31, 2011, an information was filed charging defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawfully possessing ammunition (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, see now § 30305, subd. (a)(1), operative Jan 1, 2012). The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant was detained at a BART station after being observed with marijuana in his hand. In the process of citing defendant, Officer Austin asked defendant if he had any additional marijuana and directed him to turn his pockets out. Defendant started to comply but then admitted that he had a gun in his pocket. Austin searched defendant and found him to be in possession of a loaded revolver.
On November 21, 2011, defendant moved to suppress evidence on the ground that the seizure of the firearm was made without a search warrant. The court properly denied the motion.
On December 21, 2011, defendant pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. The plea was entered with the understanding that the court could sentence defendant to a term of 16 months in state prison. On the same day, the court sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months and awarded 180 days of custody credits.
Defendant was represented by counsel. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
The judgment is affirmed.
_______________
RIVERA, J.
We concur:
_______________
RUVOLO, P.J.
_______________
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
--------