Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA114651
THE COURT:Appellant Frank Myles appeals from the order granting probation entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of one count of possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359. The trial court placed appellant under terms and conditions of probation for three years.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues.
On February 2, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
The record shows that Detective Enrique Rosado of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department saw appellant and a companion seated in a truck parked in a restaurant parking lot. As Detective Rosado drove past the truck he saw the passenger smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette. The detective could also smell burnt marijuana. He parked his patrol car and approached the truck with his gun drawn. He told both occupants of the truck to let him see their hands. He ordered appellant, the driver, out of the vehicle. As appellant exited, the detective saw a clear plastic baggie where appellant’s feet had been. The baggie contained a green leafy substance resembling marijuana. At the same time, Detective Rosado saw another bag where the front passenger’s feet were located. While keeping an eye on the passenger, the detective took appellant to his patrol car, read him his Miranda rights and placed him inside the patrol car. The detective then escorted the passenger to the patrol car and placed him inside.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).
When Detective Rosado questioned appellant about the marijuana, appellant asked why the detective was making “such a big deal, ” since marijuana would be legal soon. He also said, “I only sell marijuana to make a little extra money.”
Laboratory tests revealed the substances found in the truck to be marijuana. The smaller baggie near appellant’s feet contained 45.5 grams of marijuana. The detective believed it was possessed for sale. The weight of the package of marijuana found near the passenger seat was 1, 392 grams, and the detective believed it was possessed for sale also. The detective also found one partially burned hand-rolled cigarette that contained marijuana.
Appellant testified that he told his passenger to put out the marijuana cigarette when he picked him up and gave him a ride. They went to the restaurant to eat. Appellant was not aware that his passenger had packages of marijuana with him. Appellant saw only that his passenger had a black bag with a jacket sleeve protruding from it. Appellant did not make the statements the detective attributed to him.
The parties stipulated that appellant’s passenger pleaded “no contest” to possession of marijuana for sale. During the taking of his plea, he told the court that “everything was [his]” and that appellant “shouldn’t... be in this situation.”
At appellant’s request, we have reviewed the transcript of the July 9, 2010 in camera hearing pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. We have determined that it constitutes an adequate record of the trial court’s review of the documents provided to the court. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and did not fail to disclose discoverable information from Detective Rosado’s personnel files. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1230, 1232.
We have examined the entire record, and we are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.