Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA064971, Susan M. Speer, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
Wesley Fred Morhouser was convicted by the trial court of possessing methamphetamine. This conviction was based upon contraband discovered by a deputy sheriff during a pat-down on April 28, 2010. The deputy was present at defendant’s house to conduct a parole compliance check on defendant’s girlfriend, Cheryl Newman. As the deputy approached the house, Newman stepped out of the garage through a side door. When Newman saw the deputy, she shouted back into the garage, “The cops.” The side door slammed shut and the deputy heard it lock. From within the garage, the deputy heard movement and a man’s voice. The deputy demanded that the man come out, and after several seconds, defendant emerged. The deputy patted him down for weapons and recognized the “distinct, ” “slightly bumpy” feel of a bulge in defendant’s trouser pocket as methamphetamine. The deputy removed from the pocket a plastic bag, which was later found to contain 0.37 grams of methamphetamine.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the methamphetamine. Defendant waived a jury trial and agreed to submit the issue of his guilt on the basis of the preliminary hearing transcript. The trial court convicted defendant and placed him on Proposition 36 probation (Pen. Code, § 1210.1) for 18 to 36 months.
Defendant filed a timely appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On April 26, 2011, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: CHANEY, J., JOHNSON, J.