Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BA 317869 William C. Ryan, Judge.
Robert Derham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
On May 30, 2006, Herman Randle pleaded no contest to failing to register as a sex offender in violation of Penal Code section 290. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court struck Randle’s various prior convictions and imposed a three-year prison sentence but suspended the sentence pending Randle’s successful completion of 36 months of probation. Recognizing that Randle was homeless, the court imposed, then deleted, various statutorily mandated fines and fees.
Undesignated code section references are to the Penal Code. Randle specifically pleaded guilty to violation of section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(A) of the version of the statute that was in effect in May 2006.
Randle allegedly was at the police station trying to register as required under section 290 when he was arrested on October 26, 2005, for failure to register.
On June 11, 2007, a jury convicted Randle of possessing cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Randle admitted to having five prior strike convictions pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and to having six prior convictions resulting in three prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court struck all but one of the prior strike convictions, selected the mid-term of two years, doubled it to four years for the prior strike pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1), and added one year for each of Randle’s prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), for a total sentence of seven years. The court awarded Randle 231 days of custody credit and imposed various fines and fees.
Randle timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asked us independently to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 4, 2008, we advised Randle that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date we have received no response. His notice of appeal, however, did include a letter explaining why he believed his conviction should be reversed.
We have examined the entire record and considered Randle’s letter and are satisfied that Randle’s appellate 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, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) We are limited, of course, to reviewing only the record before us. (See People v. Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534.)
On the Court’s own motion, the record for People v. Liner, B201373 (L.A.S.C. No. BA 317869) is hereby incorporated with People v. Randle, B202415 (L.A.S.C. No. BA 317869).
At trial, police officers testified that on February 23, 2007, while they were on duty in plain clothes responding to a fellow officer’s report of narcotics activity at a location in Los Angeles, they saw Randle and a companion walk up to a car, Randle give the companion money, the companion give the money to the car’s driver, the driver give the companion a small object, and the companion give the object to Randle. The companion then saw a plainclothes policeman approaching, became suspicious, and elbowed Randle. Randle dropped the object, wrapped in tin foil, on the ground. Police picked it up, arrested Randle, his companion, and the car’s driver, and booked the foil-wrapped object into evidence. A police criminalist testified that the object wrapped in foil was a rock of cocaine base. Randle did not testify.
At sentencing, Randle’s trial counsel moved to strike all of Randle’s prior strikes and convictions resulting in prison terms, arguing that Randle was 57 years old, homeless, and not a high risk for further serious criminal activity; the current offense was minor; Randle’s prior strike convictions, including robbery, armed robbery, and assault with intent to commit rape, occurred in 1979, 1982, and 1992 and thus were remote in time; and but for his conviction of failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290, Randle would have been eligible for probation under section 1210.1, subdivision (a), because Randle was released from prison in 2001 after serving time for multiple counts of robbery committed in 1992, and aside from the conviction for failure to register, he had remained free of prison custody and had not committed an offense resulting in a felony conviction for a period of five years after his release from prison, pursuant to section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(1). The court denied Randle’s motion, as well as counsel’s request for the 32-month sentence that the court offered as a plea agreement before trial.
In the letter Randle submitted with his notice of appeal, he denied possessing the cocaine rock, protested his innocence, emphasized that police found the rock on the ground, and asserted that he had offered to take a lie detector test but was refused. On direct appeal, however, we are limited to reviewing the record before us, and this record sheds no additional light on Randle’s claim of innocence.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
We concur: MALLANO, Acting P. J., JACKSON, J.
(Judge of the L. A. S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)