Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI026034. J. David Mazurek, Judge.
Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant Gary Jerome Tripp appeals from a guilty plea to a single count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At a preliminary hearing, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Catalano testified he was on patrol with a partner on August 24, 2006. They initiated a traffic stop of a black Hummer with tinted windows and no front license plate. He contacted the passenger of the vehicle, and his partner, Detective Martinez, contacted the driver. Defendant was identified as the driver. Deputy Catalano and Detective Martinez were then assisted by Deputy Ramirez and Deputy Burns.
After confirming defendant had three outstanding arrest warrants, Deputy Catalano assisted Deputy Ramirez in conducting a patdown search. During the search, Deputy Ramirez discovered defendant was holding what appeared to be a large bundle of toilet paper in between the cheeks of his buttocks. When the toilet paper was removed and unwrapped, the deputies discovered two baggies containing a white crystal substance, which appeared to be a useable quantity of methamphetamine, and six individually wrapped packages of a substance, which appeared to be a useable quantity of rock cocaine. During the preliminary hearing, the parties stipulated the substances found were indeed methamphetamine and cocaine base.
The same day they stopped the Hummer, deputies obtained and executed a search warrant on defendant’s residence. In the master bedroom, Deputy Catalano located $800 in cash; an empty but brand new box for a gram scale; a monitor attached to three exterior cameras directed to watch the driveway, the front of the residence, and the approaching street; baggies with a white crystal residue that appeared to be methamphetamine; a revolver; a loaded semiautomatic handgun; pay-owe sheets; and documents indicating defendant resided there. In addition, a number of new and used electronic items were found in the garage and in other locations of the residence. Based on his experience, Deputy Catalano testified that drug dealers often take electronic items in payment for drugs instead of money. Often, these items are stolen and are hard to track. Based on his training and experience, Deputy Catalano testified the residence was being used to sell controlled substances, and the drugs found on defendant’s person were possessed for sale.
Defendant was charged with transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) (count 1); transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) (count 2); possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) (count 3); possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) (count 4); and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 5).
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) (count 3) in exchange for a sentence of three years in prison. All remaining counts were dismissed.
On January 30, 2009, the court was advised defendant wished to file a motion to withdraw his plea; the court appointed a conflict panel attorney to assist him. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea on March 20, 2009, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. The court held a hearing on defendant’s motion on April 3, 2009. Defendant and his prior attorney both testified at the hearing. Based on this testimony, as well as the transcript of defendant’s change of plea hearing, the court denied the motion because it concluded there were no grounds for withdrawing the plea. The court then followed the plea agreement by sentencing defendant to the upper term of three years in prison.
DISCUSSION
On May 26, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal in propria persona. Appellate counsel then filed a second notice of appeal on June 3, 2009. In the second notice of appeal, defendant indicated he wished not only to challenge the validity of his plea, but also wanted to appeal his sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea, which do not affect its validity. Although defendant requested a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5, it was denied by the trial court. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed briefs under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
On January 19, 2010, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief on February 1, 2010, arguing there was a conflict because the judge who signed the search warrant in this case was the same judge who heard the motion to withdraw his plea.
“A judge has a duty to decide any proceeding in which he or she is not disqualified.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.) Defendant has not alleged any particular facts that would be grounds to disqualify the judge from either or both of these matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1 et seq.) We must therefore reject defendant’s argument.
We have concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, J., RICHLI, J.