Opinion
A101798.
10-14-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BYRON P. PEIRSON III, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Byron P. Peirson III pled guilty to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, subdivision (a), and admitted a Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) allegation. After a contested sentencing hearing, the court denied defendants application for probation and sentenced him to the upper term of seven years. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendants counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We reviewed the record on appeal and find that there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
Discussion
During a probation search of defendants residence, members of a narcotics task force found defendants son and a 17-year-old girl under the influence of methamphetamine. A clandestine methamphetamine operation was discovered. Numerous chemicals used to make methamphetamine and methamphetamine cookware were found. A .22 caliber rifle was found in a hallway. A video camera tracked anyone coming into the residence. The district attorney filed a six-count felony complaint. Eventually defendant changed his plea and pled guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and admitted that he was armed with a .22 caliber rifle.
At the sentencing hearing Audrey Peirson testified about her sons improvement after he started attending a twelve-step program. Thomas Burgess testified that Transition Place, a residential rehabilitation program, would provide adequately for defendants rehabilitation. The court denied probation on the grounds that the case was not unusual and that the statutory limitation on probation was not overcome. The court found specified circumstances in aggravation outweighed those in mitigation and imposed the upper term of seven years. The court properly struck the enhancement because it was used as a circumstance in aggravation.
Competent counsel represented counsel at all stages of the proceedings. At his change of plea on November 21, 2002, defendant was fully advised of his rights and the consequences of his plea. There was no error in the sentencing proceedings or the sentence imposed. There are no issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Stein, J. and Margulies, J.