Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF082502
ROBIE, J.
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Defendant Joseph George Sencion and his codefendants, who are not parties to this appeal, waived their right to a preliminary examination.
An information alleged drug, firearm and gang charges, all committed on or about July 30, 2008. Defendant pled no contest to possession of cocaine for sale and active gang participation, and admitted a firearm enhancement. Other charges were dismissed.
Officers conducting a warrant search of an apartment on August 7, 2008, found defendant and others present, along with a loaded pistol. A further search discovered two more firearms, a loaded AK-47 assault rifle and a double barreled sawed-off shotgun, and 28 grams of methamphetamine, nine grams of cocaine salt, and photographs of defendant and a codefendant “throwing hand signs used by the Norteno criminal street gang.” Officers also found “cutting agents; scales; and other various items that showed the suspects[’] involvement with the Norteno criminal street gang.”
The trial court denied probation because of the amount of drugs (an ounce of methamphetamine, and nine grams of cocaine), and the weapons (a pistol, an assault weapon, and a sawed-off shotgun), stating in part: “Mr. Sencion, if you were living next door to you, I think you would want you to go to prison, too.” After noting that defendant had recently married, the trial court still denied probation: “As I said gangs, guns, drugs, the quantit[ies] that were found is too much, Mr. Sencion.” The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years for the drug offense, plus one year for the firearm enhancement, and imposed a concurrent term on the gang offense.
Defendant timely filed this appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his supplemental brief, defendant pleads for more lenient treatment, noting that he has a clean criminal record, had never been placed on probation, had a good high school record, and was young (age 20, according to the probation report).
These were appropriate matters for the trial court to consider at sentencing, and his trial counsel argued these facts justified a grant of probation. However, as stated, the trial court concluded the amount of drugs, the weapons, and the gang involvement militated against probation. “A denial of a grant of probation generally rests within the broad discretion of the trial court and should not and will not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” (People v. Edwards (1976) 18 Cal.3d 796, 807.) We find no abuse of discretion in this case.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J., HULL, J.