Opinion
A131771
09-20-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL MEADOWS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. 214197-01)
Appellant Michael Meadows was found guilty by a jury of selling oxycodone in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) (count 1) and possessing oxycodone for purposes of sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351 (count 3). Appellant also admitted two prior drug sale conviction allegations. He was sentenced to the upper term of five years on count 1 and to a concurrent midterm of four years on count 3.
The abstract of judgment does not reflect any enhanced punishment for the admitted priors, and they must be deemed stricken. (People v. Meloney (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1145.)
Officer Alejandro Cortes of the San Francisco Police Department was participating in a "buy-bust" operation near Golden Gate Avenue and Leavenworth Street. Pursuant to the operation, Cortes handed appellant two $20 bills and two $5 bills of marked money. In exchange, appellant gave Cortes one pill of "suspected oxycodone." Cortes then gave a prearranged signal to the arrest team. Officer Joseph Marte, who was a member of the arrest team, detained and searched appellant. In appellant's pants pocket, Marte found four green pills. Officer Jimmie Lew, who was also part of the team, found one of the marked $5 bills on the ground next to appellant. In a trash can inside a store that appellant had entered, Lew also found the two marked $20 bills. Only one of the four pills found on appellant was chemically tested, and it tested positive for oxycodone. A prosecution expert testified that in his opinion the oxycodone pills were possessed for purposes of sale. Appellant denied selling any pills or discarding any money.
Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.
Appellant was informed of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so.
--------
Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. There was no prejudicial error in sentencing.
Judgment affirmed.
Reardon, J.
We concur:
Ruvolo, P.J.
Sepulveda, J.