Opinion
A131642
09-28-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RALPH HARVARD WIGINGTON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FCR258243, FCR264785, VCR202652)
Defendant Ralph Wigington was sentenced to eight years in state prison after pleading no contest to transportation of marijuana and possession of methamphetamine for sale, with two prior prison terms and an out-on-bail enhancement. Defendant appeals, and his appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so.
We have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues that require briefing, and affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Since defendant pleaded no contest prior to trial, we derive the factual background from the preliminary hearing transcripts.
Case no. FCR258243
On July 25, 2008, Vacaville Police Detective Stuart Tan was parked at a rest stop, conducting a surveillance in conjunction with an ongoing narcotics investigation. He spotted defendant repeatedly getting into and out of a burgundy Volvo that was parked in the lot with its hood up. At one point, another man got out of the Volvo, walked over to a different car, and left. A woman then walked over to defendant, spoke with him briefly, engaged in a hand-to-hand exchange of a small item while vigilantly looking around, and then returned to her car. Believing he had just witnessed a drug transaction, Detective Tan alerted nearby uniformed officers, who detained defendant and the woman. A search of defendant's car uncovered four packages of methamphetamine, as well as other drugs and drug paraphernalia. In the back seat, there was a backpack containing a loaded, .40-calibur, semiautomatic handgun. In the center console, there was a collapsible baton known as an "asp."
Defendant was placed under arrest. In his pockets, the police found over $4,400 in cash and a wallet that contained a California driver's license bearing defendant's photograph but someone else's name.
Defendant took full responsibility for all of the items found in the car. He also told Detective Tan that he lived in an apartment in Napa, giving the detective a key and telling him that he would find additional narcotics and cash inside. Three days later, Detective Tan searched the Napa apartment and found the items defendant had described, including methamphetamine, ecstasy, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and hydromorphone.
Case no. FCR264785
On March 18, 2009, Detective Tan and other officers from the Vacaville and Fairfield police departments executed a search warrant at a house in Fairfield. Defendant and four others were present in the house at the time. One of them, a woman who claimed to be involved in a romantic relationship with defendant, advised Detective Tan that there was methamphetamine belonging to defendant in her bedroom. In searching the room, the police located a bag of methamphetamine and two pipes. They also found a jacket belonging to defendant, in the pocket of which was more methamphetamine and a key belonging to defendant's Volvo, parked outside. Officers searched defendant's car and found $1,258 in cash.
Case no.VCR202652
On March 28, 2009, Vallejo Police Officer Jason Potts and other officers executed a search warrant at an apartment in Vallejo based on information that the resident there, Charles Ford, was selling methamphetamine out of the apartment. In the apartment, the police found a scale and a small amount of methamphetamine. While they were at the apartment, Ford's cell phone rang, and Officer Potts answered it, pretending to be Ford. The caller, who identified himself as "Ralph," advised that he would be bringing marijuana over and would be arriving in a loud diesel truck. Officer Potts advised other officers that someone was coming over to sell marijuana, and a few minutes later, Officer Potts heard the truck arrive, and then heard officers yelling, "Police. Show me your hands. Show me your hands." Defendant, who was driving the truck, and a female passenger were detained at gunpoint and removed from the truck. A .45-caliber handgun was recovered from the truck, as were bags of methamphetamine and marijuana. A search of defendant recovered over $1,000. During the incident, the police intercepted a cell phone call and text message on defendant's phone that appeared to be attempts to purchase narcotics.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2010, following preliminary hearings in all three cases, the district attorney of Solano County filed informations charging defendant as follows:
-- Case no. FCR258243: (1) possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); (2) possession of ecstasy for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); (3) possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)); and (4) possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)). It was further alleged that defendant had two prior convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c) and had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Case no. FCR264785: (1) possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). It was further alleged that defendant was on bail in case no. FCR258243 at the time he committed the offense, that he had two prior convictions within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), and that he served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Case no. VCR202652: (1) transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); (2) possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); (3) possession of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)); (4) transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)); (5) possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359); (6) possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); and (7) possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)). As to counts 1 and 2, it was alleged that defendant was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the offenses within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) and that he had two prior convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c). And as to all counts, it was alleged that defendant served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
After the court granted a motion by the district attorney to consolidate the three cases, the district attorney filed a consolidated, 12-count information charging defendant with the same offenses set forth above.
On December 13, 2010, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale and one count of transportation of marijuana, and admitted two prior prison terms and two prior drug sale enhancements. As a condition of the disposition, it was agreed that the latter two enhancements would be stricken or dismissed at the time of judgment and sentence if the court denied probation. It was further agreed that if the court granted probation, defendant would receive a suspended, 14-year prison sentence, and if the court denied probation, he would receive an 8-year sentence.
On February 2, 2011, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to eight years in state prison.
This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Following a plea of guilty, the scope of reviewable issues before us is restricted to matters based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings leading to the plea. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895-896.) We conclude there were no arguable irregularities in the proceedings.
Defendant's no contest plea complied with Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
The sentence imposed was authorized by law.
Defendant was represented by competent counsel who zealously guarded his rights and interests.
Our independent review having found no arguable issues that require briefing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Richman, J.
We concur:
Kline, P.J.
Haerle, J.