The People v. Pinks CA6

Filed 10/3/13 P. v. Pinks CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038922 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS110802A)

v.

LENNOX PINKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION

Male inmates in the Salinas Valley State Prison are expected to disrobe in their cells, bend over, and spread their buttocks at the direction of correctional officers outside their cells. During such a routine search for contraband on December 30, 2010, Correctional Officer Troy Miller noticed some lubricant in the rectal area of defendant Lennox Pinks and a plastic ball protruding from his rectum. Miller handcuffed defendant after having him dress and brought him to a more secure area in a health annex for a further search. Although defendant denied having any contraband on his person, Miller confirmed his observation during a repetition of the earlier examination. On further questioning by Miller, defendant admitted it was drugs and clarified that it was heroin. At Miller’s request, defendant removed a plastic-wrapped bindle and dropped it behind himself. Subsequent analysis by a criminologist confirmed that in defendant’s rectum were four plastic-wrapped bindles of black tar heroin totaling .35 grams in weight.

Facing charges of unauthorized possession of heroin in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.61) with a prior robbery conviction (§ 1170.12), defendant agreed to waive a jury trial on the condition that if convicted, his maximum sentence would be the lower term doubled to four years. The same day, August 20, 2012, defendant was convicted as charged after a court trial based on the above evidence with no testimony from defendant. He requested immediate sentencing and was sentenced the same day to prison for four years consecutive to any other sentence he was already serving. Defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal on October 11, 2012 that explained that his attorney had breached a promise to mail him a notice of appeal form. By letter dated May 2, 2013, this court notified defendant that his appellate counsel filed a brief inviting us to identify any arguable appellate issues. Defendant has responded with a half-page handwritten letter acknowledging our letter and asking for assistance in arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective because defendant was not allowed to call specific witnesses. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW