Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA085108
THE COURT:Roosevelt Perkins appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a) and misdemeanor possession of a smoking device. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a).) The trial court found true the allegation that appellant suffered seven prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) Appellant stipulated to suffering a serious or violent felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 459) within the meaning of the three strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
On June 7, 2006, at 8:45 p.m., in a high drug, high crime area, Los Angeles police officer Patrick Fitzgerald stopped appellant for riding a bicycle without a headlight in violation of Vehicle Code section 21201, subdivision (d). After appellant told the officer he was on parole for commercial burglary the officer conducted a routine “pat-down.” The officer felt a tube in appellant’s pocket. Appellant admitted he had a pipe. Officer Fitzgerald removed the pipe and also found cocaine in appellant’s pocket. For count 1, he was sentenced to 10 years in state prison. The trial court imposed the upper term of three years, which was doubled to six years under the “Three Strikes Law” plus four 1-year terms for four of the prior prison enhancements. For count 2, the trial court imposed a concurrent six months in county jail.
We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed a “Statement by Counsel on Appeal Pursuant to People v. Wende” in which no issues were raised.
On August 21, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. We received a response on August 31, 2007. Appellant’s claim that Officer Fitzgerald violated his Fifth Amendment right by searching him without probable cause is meritless. (People v. Williams (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106 [parole search justified where officer has reasonable suspicion that parolee is again involved in criminal activity].) Riding a bike in the evening without headlights in a high crime, high drug activity area were sufficient facts to trigger a reasonable suspicion that appellant was intending to commit a crime.
Even though appellant does not raise the issue of whether imposition of the upper term violated his constitutional rights, we feel constrained to note that the right to a jury trial does not apply to the fact of a prior conviction. (People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 818; People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 836-837.) Moreover, the “‘prior conviction’ exception” must not be read too narrowly; it includes “not only the fact that a prior conviction occurred, but also other related issues that may be determined by examining the records of the prior convictions.” (Black, supra, at p. 819.)
The judgment is affirmed.