Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 204481
Jones, P.J.
John Soffer appeals from an order granting him probation. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On January 27, 2008, San Francisco Police Officers Saw, Lucas and Ferrando were on patrol in the Tenderloin when Saw noticed appellant and another man huddled together on the street. They appeared to be passing something and Saw suspected a narcotics transaction was taking place. Officer Ferrando, (who was driving) stopped the patrol car. Officers Saw and Lucas got out and walked toward the men. When Saw was a few feet away, appellant looked up. Seeing the approaching officer, appellant quickly threw “several white pieces” of what appeared to be a rock-like substance on the ground. Saw grabbed appellant by the shoulder and asked what he was doing. Appellant, who had an earring in his hand, said he was trying to sell it to the other man.
Officer Ferrando picked up four pieces of a rock-like substance from the ground where appellant had been standing. A criminalist analyzed the pieces. They contained cocaine base.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with possessing cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).)
The case proceeded to a jury trial where the prosecution presented the evidence we have set forth above. Appellant testified in his own defense. He claimed he did not have any drugs on his person that night and that he was simply trying to sell some jewelry. The jurors rejected appellant’s defense and convicted him of possessing cocaine base. Subsequently, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The conviction is supported by substantial evidence. The court did not commit any prejudicial evidentiary rulings. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel. We see no error in the sentence. While the probation report indicates appellant may have mental problems, we find no evidence that appellant was legally incompetent as our Supreme Court has defined that term. (See People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 951-953.)
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The order granting probation is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J., Bruiniers, J.