Opinion
A100238.
7-31-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARVIN WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Marvin Williams appeals from a judgment entered after he plead guilty to one count of driving on a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1), and a jury convicted him on one count of resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.
On April 5, 2001, appellant was driving his car near the Sunnydale housing projects in San Francisco. The five-year-old child of an acquaintance was in the back seat. Appellants drivers license had been suspended, and the car did not have license plates.
San Francisco police officers who were on patrol in the area noticed that appellants car lacked license plates. They began to follow him. When appellant parked and started to get out of his car, the officers also stopped. They identified themselves and asked appellant to step back into his car. Appellant fled. The officers pursed appellant and were able to detain him after he fell.
One of the officers saw appellant throw an object onto a ledge just before he fell. Another officer searched the ledge. He found a package that contained cocaine.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with four counts: possession of cocaine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), misdemeanor child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)), misdemeanor driving on a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor resisting arrest, (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)).
The case proceeded to a jury trial where the prosecution presented the evidence set forth above. Appellant testified on his own behalf. He admitted that he was driving in the area on the date in question, and that his license had been suspended. Appellant denied, however, that he had possessed or thrown a package of cocaine.
After the parties had presented their evidence, appellant pleaded guilty to driving on a suspended or revoked license. The jury then convicted appellant of resisting arrest, acquitted him of child endangerment, and was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of possession for sale. The trial court granted a mistrial as to the latter count.
Subsequently, the parties agreed to a disposition. In exchange for a dismissal of the possession for sale count, imposition of sentence would be suspended, and appellant would be placed on probation for three years. The trial court agreed with the proposal and placed appellant on probation accordingly. This appeal followed.
We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Prior to accepting appellants plea, the court made sure appellant understood the Constitutional rights he was waiving. The jurys verdict is supported by substantial evidence. We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was vigorously represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J., Gemello, J.