Opinion
B225771
09-08-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUDOLFO SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA365437)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sam Ohta, Judge. Affirmed.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On the night of December 4, 2009, Los Angeles Police Officer Tyler Fox was driving a marked patrol car in downtown Los Angeles. He noticed defendant Rudolfo Sanchez talking with another man, who was reaching for a plastic baggie in defendant's hand. Both men saw Fox and became startled. Defendant backed up and dropped the plastic baggie into a planter; his companion quickly walked away. Fox got out of his patrol car and approached defendant who ran a few steps before Fox detained him. Fox reached into the planter and recovered a plastic baggie containing 30 rocks of crack cocaine weighing approximately 4.16 grams. Fox also found on defendant $150 cash in small denominations. Defendant volunteered he could not get a job and was just trying to make some money.
Defendant was thereafter arrested and charged by information with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), with special allegations he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and four prior drug-related convictions pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The information further alleged defendant had previously served four separate prison terms for felonies under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and denied the special allegations. His two motions to discharge appointed counsel prior to trial were heard and denied. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.)
A jury convicted defendant as charged. Defendant waived his right to trial and agreed to admit the prior strike allegation and three Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) allegations.
At sentencing, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of eight years, consisting of the upper term of five years for possession for sale of cocaine base, plus three years under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 1385, People v. Superior Court (Romero)(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and dismissed the remaining enhancement allegations in the interests of justice.
The court ordered defendant to pay a $30 security fee and a $30 criminal conviction assessment, a $50 lab fee, a $150 drug program fee and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Defendant was awarded 308 days of presentence credit (154 actual days and 154 days of conduct credit).
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On April 11, 2001, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WOODS , Acting P. J.
We concur:
ZELON, J.
JACKSON, J.