From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Singh

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Apr 30, 2009
No. H033674 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAGDIP SINGH, Defendant and Appellant. H033674 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District April 30, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CC895543.

Duffy, J.

In September 2008, defendant Jagdip Singh pleaded no contest to one felony count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and also admitted the allegation that he had previously suffered a felony conviction that constituted a violent or serious felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b) - (i)/1170.12). After the court struck the prior conviction allegation, defendant was placed on probation on the condition that he serve six months in county jail concurrent with a sentence being served in another matter. Defendant filed a timely appeal. We will affirm the judgment.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The factual background is derived from the probation officer’s report included in the clerk’s transcript.

At about 1:00 p.m. on February 10, 2008, defendant was observed by a San Jose police officer standing next to a white car. Loud music was emanating from the car in violation of a local ordinance, and the officer made contact with defendant. Based upon the officer’s observations, he believed that defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance stimulant. In response to the officer’s question as to whether he had drugs or weapons in the car, defendant said, “ ‘Go ahead and check[;] you have to use the keys to open up the trunk.’ ” The officer searched the car and discovered “a wadded up paper that contained a white crystal-like substance.” In a later search of defendant’s person, the officer found a plastic bag that had “ ‘more white crystal-like substance’ ” (approximately 1.3 grams). Test results of both of the substances were presumptively positive for methamphetamine.

Defendant was charged by information filed August 1, 2008, with one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The information contained the further allegation that defendant had suffered a prior felony conviction (residential burglary; §§ 459/460, subd. (a)) that constituted a violent or serious felony (§§ 667, subds. (b) - (i)/1170.12). On September 24, 2008, defendant pleaded no contest to the methamphetamine possession count and admitted the prior serious felony conviction allegation charged in the information. Before accepting the plea, the court apprised defendant fully of the rights he was giving up as a result of his no contest plea and concerning the consequences of that plea. Counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea.

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to have the court exercise its discretion to strike the prior serious felony conviction allegation in accordance with People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). The People prepared written opposition to the Romero motion that appears to have not been filed. On December 5, 2008, the court granted the Romero motion. It thereafter suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation on the condition that defendant serve six months in the county jail to run concurrent to the sentence defendant received in another case (Santa Clara County Superior Court, no. CC457067). Defendant filed a notice of appeal on December 12, 2008, in which he challenged the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which stated the case and the facts but raised no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. This period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Based upon that review, we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., McAdams, J.


Summaries of

People v. Singh

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Apr 30, 2009
No. H033674 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAGDIP SINGH, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

Citations

No. H033674 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)