Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. JOSEPH L. LOPES, SCR482749, SCR488220
Jones, P.J.
Joseph L. Lopes appeals from judgments entered in two separate criminal proceedings. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On February 18, 2006, Rhonert Park Police Officer David Rodriguez was dispatched to assist another officer who had stopped appellant’s car for a traffic violation. Rodriguez conducted a pat search of appellant. As he did so, a small bag fell out of appellant’s pants. It contained a purple pill. The pill was analyzed and was found to contain ecstasy.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, possessing a controlled substance, ecstasy. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)
Appellant was released on bail. While on bail, he committed another offense. On May 12, 2006, appellant was arrested at a tire store in Santa Rosa after he attempted to use another person’s credit card to purchase a new set of wheels. A deputy searched appellant and found a set of keys. Appellant said they were for his car that was parked in one of the service bays of the tire store. The deputy searched the car and found a locked box in the trunk. Appellant told the deputy that the locked box belonged to him. The deputy took the box back to the station where another deputy opened it. Inside were several bullets and a small pen gun.
Based on these facts, a second information was filed charging appellant with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1), and being a felon in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)). The information also alleged appellant had two prior strikes within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 1170.12).
The drug case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded no contest to possessing ecstasy. In exchange, other allegations were dropped.
The weapon and ammunition case was set for trial. Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress arguing the search of his car was illegal. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion and denied it.
Appellant also filed a motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, asking that new counsel be appointed. The trial court conducted an in camera hearing on appellant’s request and denied it.
The case was then tried to jurors who convicted appellant on both offenses. In a court trial that followed, the court found both strike allegations to be true.
Appellant filed a motion to vacate and for a new trial. He argued the jury’s verdict on both counts was not supported by substantial evidence. Appellant also asked the court to strike one or more of the strike findings pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
The trial court denied the motion to vacate and the motion for new trial, ruling the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence. However, the court agreed to strike one of the strike findings.
Subsequently, the court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years for being a felon in possession of a firearm, doubled to six years pursuant to the strike finding. In addition, the court imposed a concurrent term of two years, doubled to four years, for the ammunition offense. The court also imposed a two-year term on appellant’s drug conviction, and ordered that term be served concurrent to the term imposed for the weapon and ammunition case.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
With respect to the drug case, before accepting appellant’s plea, the court took steps to ensure that appellant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving. The court also made sure that appellant understood the consequences of his plea. The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
On the weapon and ammunition case, the court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress. (California v. Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565; South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364.) The court also correctly denied appellant’s Marsden motion. The jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence. There were no prejudicial evidentiary rulings. The court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion to vacate or for a new trial. The court sentenced appellant correctly. Again, appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgments are affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J., Stevens, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.