Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA349246, John Fisher, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
Kevin Salazar appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and his admission that he suffered a prior serious or violent felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a) through (d) and 667, subds. (b) through (i)). He was sentenced to prison for 32 months, consisting of the low term of 16 months, doubled by reason of his prior strike conviction. The charge of second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) was dismissed by reason of plea negotiations.
Appellant’s motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 was heard and denied. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that at approximately 11:30 p.m., on November 18, 2008, Los Angeles Police Officer Christopher Gonzalez saw appellant riding his bicycle without a headlamp. Officer Gonzalez and his partner exited their vehicle, approached appellant, and asked him for his identification. Appellant responded that he did not have any identification with him. Officer Gonzalez then saw a bulky item protruding from the pocket of appellant’s sweatshirt and, for the safety of the officer and his partner, conducted a patdown search of appellant. Officer Gonzalez felt a bulky item in appellant’s pocket and removed it. The officer asked appellant what the item was and who it belonged to and appellant responded it was a GPS system and it belonged to his aunt. Along with the GPS system, appellant also had a cord and adapter in his pocket. When Officer Gonzalez’s partner “pressed the home button on the GPS system” it displayed an address in the immediate area. Appellant stated he did not know his aunt’s address. The officers went to the address displayed on the GPS and spoke to the owner of the device. The owner confirmed that the GPS and the adapter had been stolen from his vehicle.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On July 29, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MANELLA, J., SUZUKAWA, J.