From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sparks

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte
May 17, 2007
No. C053818 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 17, 2007)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES JOSEPH SPARKS, Defendant and Appellant. C053818 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Butte, May 17, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CM025044

BUTZ , J.

In May 2006, police received a report of a person attempting to purchase drugs at a local park. Responding officers noticed that defendant James Joseph Sparks matched the description of the suspect. Near the front of defendant’s truck, officers found a cut straw and a folded piece of foil containing residue of suspected drugs. A search of the truck revealed a fanny pack containing a homemade pistol. Defendant admitted possessing the pistol and loading it with shotgun pellets, but he denied knowing that it was unlawful to possess such a weapon.

Our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report.

Defendant pleaded no contest to carrying a loaded firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange for his plea, three related counts were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the midterm of two years, awarded 50 days of custody credit and 24 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $400 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8).

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

Defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: HULL , Acting P.J., ROBIE , J.


Summaries of

People v. Sparks

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte
May 17, 2007
No. C053818 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 17, 2007)
Case details for

People v. Sparks

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES JOSEPH SPARKS, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte

Date published: May 17, 2007

Citations

No. C053818 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 17, 2007)