Opinion
A131636
10-31-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.J. SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC071371A)
Defendant A.J. Smith appeals his conviction, following a plea of no contest, of possession of methadone after admitting one prior strike conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 23, 2010, just before 3:00 a.m., a police officer saw defendant and two other individuals inside Bell Park in East Palo Alto in violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits individuals from being inside the park between sunset and sunrise. When the officer asked him to identify himself, he initially provided a false name. A record check run on his true name turned up an outstanding warrant and indicated that he was on parole. An ensuing search incident to arrest uncovered narcotics and drug paraphernalia.
On July 21, 2010, the district attorney filed a three-count information against defendant charging him with one felony count of possessing methadone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of possessing a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364), and one misdemeanor count of falsely identifying himself to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation due to his prior felony convictions, that he served a prior prison term, that he had prior narcotics-related convictions, and that he suffered two prior strikes.
On March 4, 2011, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, challenging the constitutionality of the detention and ensuing search of his person.
On March 24, 2011, the trial court held a hearing and denied the suppression motion.
On April 1, 2011, defendant entered a no contest plea to the felony count of possession of methadone, and admitted one prior strike conviction with the understanding that he would receive the low term of 16 months doubled to account for the prior strike. The remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed. The court sentenced him to 32 months in prison. He was awarded 283 days of actual custody credits and 140 days of conduct credits, for a total of 423 presentence credits. Various fees and fines were also imposed. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Penal Code section 1237.5 generally precludes an appeal from a judgment of conviction after a plea of no contest or guilty unless the defendant has applied for, and the trial court has granted, a certificate of probable cause. There are two exceptions: (1) a challenge to a search and seizure ruling, as to which an appeal is proper under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) postplea sentencing issues. (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see also People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) Since no certificate of probable cause was sought or issued, defendant is not able to challenge the validity of his plea or any other matter that preceded its entry. (People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 868.) And on this record, there is no search and seizure issue.
At the change of plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court considered all relevant matters, made all necessary and appropriate findings, and imposed required fines and fees. Defendant was ably represented by counsel at all times. He received all required advisements and entered into appropriate waivers prior to his plea.
DISPOSITION
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment.
Dondero, J.
We concur:
Marchiano, P. J.
Banke, J.