Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF129250A. Michael B. Lewis, Judge.
Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), appellant, Gonzalo Ruiz, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted an allegation that he had suffered a “strike.” The court imposed a prison term of two years eight months, consisting of the 16-month lower term on the substantive offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
We use the term “strike” as a synonym for “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 11, 2010. He did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
Our factual summary is taken from the reporter’s transcript of the hearing on appellant’s suppression motion.
On September 2, 2009, appellant was on felony probation in Monterey County. On that date, Kern County Probation Department officers went to an apartment in the Bakersfield area for the purpose of making contact with appellant. The officers were in receipt of information that appellant was “requesting a transfer” of his probation to Kern County, and that the terms and conditions of appellant’s probation “included search and weapon terms.” The officers made contact with appellant and conducted a search of the apartment, during which they found a handgun and some ammunition.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.