From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Widby

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Aug 16, 2011
2d Crim. No. B228432 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2011)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B228432 Super. Ct. No. TA110217

08-16-2011

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH WIDBY, Defendant and Appellant.

Jonathan Rosenoer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.


(Los Angeles County)

Joseph Widby appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. Appellant was also awarded 416 days presentence custody credit and was ordered to pay various fines and fees. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.

Because appellant entered his plea prior to trial, the relevant facts are derived from the preliminary hearing transcript. At approximately 1:40 a.m. on January 4, 2010, two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies approached appellant as he was walking on a street known for drug activity. In response to the deputies' questioning on the subject, appellant stated that he was on probation with search conditions. A probation search was conducted, during which appellant was found to be in possession of a cigarette laced with PCP.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues.

On April 18, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.

John J. Cheroske, Judge


Superior Court County of Los Angeles

Jonathan Rosenoer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Summaries of

People v. Widby

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Aug 16, 2011
2d Crim. No. B228432 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Widby

Case Details

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

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Aug 16, 2011

Citations

2d Crim. No. B228432 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2011)