People v. Thornton

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVE C. THORNTON, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Jan 21, 2009

No. B209878 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVE C. THORNTON, Defendant and Appellant. B209878 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Eighth Division January 21, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa M. Chung, Judge, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA041284

Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

O’NEILL, J.^*

* Judge of the Ventura Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Steve Thornton (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered following his negotiated plea of no contest to possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code § 11350(a).) and his admission of two of six charged priors. (Pen. Code § 667.5 (b).) As promised, appellant was sentenced to state prison for five years, consisting of the upper three-year term for the new offense and a year for each prior.

Appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause based on an illegal parole search and ineffective assistance of counsel was granted.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel. On October 17, 2008, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On the same date the clerk of this court notified appellant by letter that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or arguments. Thornton has not responded, but we have considered the claims suggested by his application for the certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s trial counsel noticed a Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, but withdrew it after the People filed opposition which cited binding authority for conducting a parole search without individualized suspicion. (Samson v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 843.) In light of that authority we disagree with appellant’s suggestion that withdrawing the motion was incompetent. We also reject any claim that the Fourth Amendment was violated when the officers checked motel records to verify appellant’s identity.

We have independently reviewed the record and are satisfied appointed counsel fulfilled her duty and that there are no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: RUBIN, Acting P. J., FLIER, J.