Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside CountySuper.Ct.No. RIF131156, Robert George Spitzer, Judge. Affirmed.
Jean Ballentine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RAMIREZ, P.J.
A jury convicted defendant of selling heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possessing heroin for sale. (§ 11351) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that defendant had suffered a prior drug conviction. (§ 11370.2, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to prison for seven years.
All further references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which, after being translated from Spanish into English, has been read and considered.
FACTS
Defendant and his girlfriend had been together since junior high school and were cohabitating on July 7, 2006. Early on that day, a sheriff’s deputy standing outside their home heard a man ask for a “dime,” which is $10 worth of heroin. Defendant responded, saying something about money. The man said he was going to a hotel and bring back money. Defendant’s girlfriend said to bring her $10. As the deputy and his sergeant entered the house, defendant’s girlfriend tried to close one of the bedroom doors, but the deputy stopped her. The man was detained in the hall. Inside the bedroom were eight syringes and two scales within reach of the defendant and his girlfriend, who were both clad in their underwear. Defendant told his girlfriend in Spanish not to say anything. She took a loaded syringe and injected herself and put a bottle holding about 20 pink, red and orange balloons containing heroin, weighing a total of 3 grams, inside her underwear. There was a pink balloon containing heroin near the feet of the man who had been detained in the hall. The deputy opined that defendant and his girlfriend had just sold heroin to this man. The girlfriend was under the influence. A prosecution expert opined that the heroin found in their bedroom was possessed for sale and that a sale of a portion of it had taken place with the man.
Defendant’s Contentions
In his half page personal supplemental brief, defendant contends that he did not violate his probation. Although based on these convictions, defendant’s probation in another case was revoked, that case is not before this court at this time. Therefore, we cannot address defendant’s contention.
Defendant states that he did not have a chance to argue his point to the jury. He does not state what that point is, but he says this just after asserting that he was complying with his Proposition 36 drug program, which he correctly notes was not mentioned at this trial. If he is contending that he should have been given an opportunity to inform the jury that he was in compliance with his Proposition 36 drug program at the time he committed these offenses, he is incorrect. That “fact” was irrelevant to the issues at this trial, inadmissible and was contradicted by the fact that defendant committed these offenses.
He states that the officers who went to his home “were not going there to look for me because I did not violate parole[.]” This matter is irrelevant to the trial or defendant’s guilt. He also states, “I was picked up on the street in (Calson?)[.]” The record before us, however, demonstrates that defendant was arrested in the home he shared with his girlfriend in Pedley.
Finally, defendant states, “I believe there are many issues on my side, especially those that [, presumably, his appellate attorney] outlined for me in the transcript[.]” Attached to his original personal supplemental brief, in Spanish, and the translation thereof into English, is a page and a portion of another of legal-size paper which is entitled, in pencil, “Points to Appeal on Supplemental Brief”. On these pages are 15 citations to lines on pages of the transcript and a reference to “Special Instruction # 1 & 2” with no further explanation and no analysis. These do not constitute arguments which this court may address.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J., KING, J.