Opinion
2d Crim. No. B211113
3-2-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS PATRICK MORALES, Defendant and Appellant.
California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
Louis Patrick Morales appeals from the judgment (order granting probation) entered on his guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance, a felony. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) Appellant was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. Police learned of a warrant for his arrest and took him into custody. A subsequent search of his person yielded one gram of methamphetamine. After appellant pleaded guilty, the trial court granted probation on the condition, among others, that appellant participate in a court approved drug treatment program. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1.) With respect to the prior offense that led to appellants arrest, the trial court noted that a 30-day jail sentence imposed in that matter was "deemed served[,]" and that appellants probation in that matter was "revoked and reinstated." Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal; his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On December 24, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. On January 23, 2009, we received a letter from appellant in which he contends that the trial court should also have resolved his prior offense and that he did not receive effective assistance from his trial or appellate counsel.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorneys have fully complied with their respective responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) There was no error in the disposition of appellants prior offense. The trial court revoked and reinstated appellants probation in that matter and deemed his jail term to have been served. The record also does not support appellants claim that his appointed counsel provided ineffective representation. There is no reasonable probability that a result more favorable to appellant could have been obtained under any circumstances.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
COFFEE, J.
PERREN, J.