Opinion
No. A102966.
10-16-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PATRICK FRANCIS KERR, Defendant and Appellant.
Patrick Kerr appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of nolo contendere. Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
A consolidated information filed in Mendocino County Superior Court charged appellant with two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), possession of cocaine for sale (§ 11351), possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359), possession of concentrated cannabis (§ 11357, subd. (a)) and possession of a controlled substance (§ 11350, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that appellant committed two of the offenses while released from custody on bail or his own recognizance, a sentencing enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.1).
In a negotiated disposition, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378) and admitted committing one of the offenses while released from custody on bail or his own recognizance (Pen. Code, § 12022.1) with the understanding that the court would sentence him to a maximum of four years and eight months in state prison.
The court sentenced appellant to the middle term of two years in state prison for the first count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378) and a consecutive eight months, or one-third the middle term, for the second count of the same offense (§ 11378). The court then enhanced the term by two years based on the admitted enhancement for having committed one of the offenses while released from custody on bail or ones own recognizance (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). Thus, the aggregate term imposed totaled four years and eight months. The court granted appellant 186 days total presentence credit and ordered him to pay an $800 restitution fine.
Before appellant entered his plea, the court advised him of the constitutional rights he would be waiving and the direct consequences of his plea. Appellant expressly waived his constitutional rights and knowingly and voluntarily pleaded nolo contendere and admitted the special allegation.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
There was no sentencing error.
There are no issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Swager, J. --------------- Notes: Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.