Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 205999
Jones, P.J.
Khalif Robinson appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of selling a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352.) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
Unless otherwise indicated, all further section references will be to the Health and Safety Code.
On June 16, 2008, Sergeant Michael Browne of the San Francisco Police Department was working undercover as part of a “buy-bust” operation near the intersection of 16th and Mission Streets. Shortly before 3:00 p.m., Browne saw appellant and another man standing next to each other looking at their hands. When appellant turned toward Browne, they made eye contact and nodded to each other. Browne then walked up to appellant and asked him for a “solid,” i.e., $20 of crack cocaine. Appellant said, “Yes, walk with me.” As appellant and Browne walked, Browne gave appellant $20 in marked currency. In exchange, appellant spit out a rock of what appeared to be cocaine from his mouth and gave it to Browne. Browne signaled other officers that they should arrest appellant.
Officer Michael Moody approached appellant with his badge displayed. He watched appellant go to a garbage can and toss what appeared to be money inside. Moody immediately went to the can and retrieved the marked $20 bill that Officer Browne had given appellant. Moody and another officer then placed appellant under arrest.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with the offense we have set forth above. As is relevant here, the information also alleged appellant had a prior conviction for possessing a controlled substance for sale within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivisions (a) and (c).
The case proceeded to a jury trial where the prosecution presented the evidence we have set forth above. The jurors apparently found that evidence to be persuasive and convicted appellant of selling a controlled substance.
Appellant waived his right to a jury trial on the prior conviction allegation. Subsequently, appellant admitted the prior conviction allegation.
On March 19, 2009, the court denied appellant’s request for probation and sentenced him to the middle term of four years for selling a controlled substance, plus an additional consecutive three-year term for the prior conviction.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion that appellant made pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, during jury selection. (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128-129.)
Appellant’s conviction is supported by substantial evidence.
The trial court did not make any prejudicial evidentiary rulings.
Prior to accepting appellant’s admission to the prior conviction allegation, the court made sure appellant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving.
Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We see no error in the sentence.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Needham, J., Bruiniers, J.