From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Velasquez

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Feb 25, 2011
No. G043661 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 09WF2582, James Patrick Marion, Judge.

Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

Appellant Brodeli Velasquez was convicted of possession of methamphetamine (Health and Safety Code Section 11377, subd. (a), and sentenced to the low term of sixteen months in state prison. The facts of the case were straightforward. A police officer stopped a truck because it was being driven erratically. As he approached the car, he saw Velasquez, the passenger, appear to put something under his left thigh. He ordered the driver and the passenger out of the truck, received permission from the driver to search the truck, and found a useable quantify of methamphetamine on the passenger seat Velasquez had just vacated. The driver of the truck testified it was not his.

Velasquez appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised this court he could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and the only point counsel could imagine would support an appellate issue: sufficiency of the evidence.

Velasquez was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That time passed and no brief was filed. We then learned from his attorney that he had a new address. We vacated submission of the matter and sent another notice to Velasquez, giving him another thirty days to file a brief. Again we received no response. It has now been almost ninety days since that time expired.

We have considered the sufficiency of the evidence point raised by counsel, and have scoured the record – including the very short (81 pages) transcript of trial testimony and the transcript of the preliminary hearing – for other possible issues. While Velasquez complained about the quality of his representation and declared his innocence, he said nothing specific that would indicate any possible basis of appeal other than to maintain that the methamphetamine was not his.

The trial court sentenced him to state prison despite the fact the crime involved a very small amount of contraband. But Velasquez had previously been incarcerated in state prison so it is difficult to fault a low-term sentence, even for the small amount of methamphetamine involved here.

We find ourselves in agreement with appellate counsel that there are no appellate issues with a reasonable prospect of success with respect to Velasquez’s guilt or the judgment imposed upon him. The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, J., MOORE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Velasquez

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Feb 25, 2011
No. G043661 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Velasquez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRODELI VELASQUEZ, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

Date published: Feb 25, 2011

Citations

No. G043661 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)