Opinion
D062444
12-13-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CANUTO SOTO, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. JCF28660)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Lehman, Judge. Affirmed.
Canuto Soto was charged with possessing a controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health &. Saf. Code, § 11378) (count 1) and transportation of a controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) (count 2). Count 1 also alleged Soto had a prior narcotics conviction. Soto pleaded no contest to count 2, and count 1 was dismissed. The trial court imposed the upper term sentence of four years in county jail. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h).)
Soto appeals, and his appellate counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.After reviewing the entire record, we identify no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
The trial court granted Soto's request for a certificate of probable cause.
BACKGROUND
James Thompson is an officer with the El Centro Police Department. On April 3, 2012, Thompson stopped Soto for some type of driving violation. Thompson searched Soto and his vehicle, apparently because he was on probation in a federal drug case.
Soto had cash and two clear plastic sandwich baggies in his pockets, one of which contained a white crystal substance, and two packages containing a white crystal substance were hidden in the vehicle. Together, the packages weighed 46.7 grams. Thompson performed presumptive tests on the packages and they were both positive for methamphetamine. Further, Soto's cell phone contained messages asking "where [Soto] was or if [the callers] could stop by and pick up a dime," and in Thompson's experience the term "dime" is street lingo for approximately "200ths of a gram" of methamphetamine or heroin that is sold for around $10.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellate counsel has not listed any possible, but nor arguable, appellate issue under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We offered Soto the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not responded.
Our review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has not disclosed any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Appellate counsel has competently represented Rodriquez on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: NARES, J. MCDONALD, J.