From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Langley

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Jan 8, 2009
No. C057659 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL LEE LANGLEY, Defendant and Appellant. C057659 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento January 8, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. Nos. 06F07089, 06F11258 & 07F05940

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

On August 14, 2006, Sacramento police officers executed a probation search of defendant Michael Lee Langley and found a five-inch long knife along with drug paraphernalia.

In Sacramento County case No. 06F07089, defendant entered a plea of no contest to possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)). The court placed defendant on five years’ felony probation, subject to various conditions.

On December 26, 2006, Sacramento police officers were dispatched to the Spaghetti Factory restaurant on J Street after the manager reported a disturbance caused by a man who had left on a bicycle. Officers found defendant nearby next to his bicycle and apprehended him. Defendant was searched, and officers found marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a pocketknife.

In case No. 06F11258, defendant entered a plea of no contest to possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)). The court found defendant in violation of probation in case No. 06F07089, reinstated probation, and placed defendant on probation in case No. 06F11258.

On June 17, 2007, Sacramento Police Officer Jacob Casella saw defendant in an alleyway talking to Gerald Fones. Knowing defendant to be on a probation search condition, Officer Casella conducted a probation search and found two baggies of marijuana in his glove.

After Officer Casella read defendant his Miranda rights, he told the officer his friend Fones had requested delivery of the marijuana in order to sell it to an associate. Both Fones and defendant told the officer they had medical marijuana cards. Testifying at the probation revocation hearing, defendant denied selling marijuana to Fones or making the statement.

In case No. 07F05940, defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). Counsel expressed doubt about defendant’s competency to stand trial. After a psychologist examined defendant and concluded he was competent to stand trial, the court found defendant competent to be tried.

At the preliminary hearing, defendant moved to discharge his attorney pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, which the court denied after a hearing.

After a contested probation revocation hearing, the court found defendant violated his probation in case Nos. 06F07089 and 06F11258 and revoked probation in those cases. The court dismissed case No. 07F05940 upon the People’s motion.

At sentencing, the court set aside the order revoking probation, reinstated probation in case Nos. 06F07089 and 06F11258, and modified the conditions by imposing concurrent one-year county jail terms in both cases. The court awarded 23 days’ custody credit and 10 days’ conduct credit. The court later recalled the sentence and modified it to award defendant an additional 82 days of presentence credits.

Defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: HULL, J., ROBIE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Langley

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Jan 8, 2009
No. C057659 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Langley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL LEE LANGLEY, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Jan 8, 2009

Citations

No. C057659 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2009)