Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-502538
Swager, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment following his conviction for possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §11377, subd. (a)). His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has advised defendant that he can file a supplemental brief raising additional points he would like to call to our attention. We have not received a supplemental brief. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
Statement of Facts and Procedural History
Following a preliminary hearing, a “1st Amended Information” was filed on March 19, 2007, charging defendant with bringing “a drug” into the Sonoma County detention facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.5), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §11377, subd. (a)), and possession of methamphetamine in the Sonoma County detention facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.8). The information further alleged that defendant had five prior convictions within the provisions of Penal Code section 1170.12 and that he had three prior prison sentences within the provisions of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On March 16, 2007, defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and a court trial was held on March 23, 2007. The defendant was found guilty of Count II, possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and not guilty of the remaining two counts. The court found true all five allegations pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.12 and two of the three prior prison sentences alleged pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On May 30, 2007, defendant filed a motion to strike the prior convictions (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. Prior to the hearing on these motions, defendant requested that he be allowed to represent himself, and his request was granted. The court then denied the motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, but struck four of the “strike” allegations. Defendant was sentenced to a total of six years in state prison. The court imposed the midterm of two years, doubled to four pursuant to the mandate of Penal Code section 1170.12 and added an additional two consecutive years pursuant to the two Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements. Various fees and fines were imposed and defendant was awarded total custody credits of 304 days. This timely appeal followed.
The evidence presented at trial established that on the evening of December 2, 2006, Deputy Aveguilla was on duty at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility. Deputy Aveguilla observed the defendant in a holding cell in the booking area. Since defendant had “been brought in on a [Penal Code section] 3056 parole hold” the deputy conducted a strip search of defendant. The search revealed a white object on the upper part of defendant’s buttocks. The white object turned out to be a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. The substance was subsequently analyzed and found to be 2.56 grams of methamphetamine.
Discussion
Defendant was represented by counsel through trial and the filing of posttrial motions. After the filing of posttrial motions, defendant made an unequivocal request to represent himself. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.) Prior to permitting defendant to represent himself, the court advised defendant both orally and in writing of the perils of self-representation, and his right to counsel and determined that his choice was being made knowingly and intelligently.
The court properly acted within its discretion in denying the motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 17.) The court’s ruling on the Romero (People v. Superior Court (Romero), supra, 13 Cal.4th 497) motion was patently not an abuse of discretion in view of defendant’s extensive prior criminal record. There are no sentencing errors.
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Stein, J.