People v. Sanders CA1/3

Filed 6/30/14 P. v. Sanders CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139416 v. DONALD L. SANDERS, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC073473A) Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal from judgment following entry of a no-contest plea by appellant Donald L. Sanders to one count of possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359 in Case No. SC073473. Pursuant to the negotiated disposition, the trial court suspended imposition of a sentence and placed appellant on supervised probation for three years subject to various terms and conditions, including that he serve 120 days in county jail. Appellant received one day of presentence custody credit, and the trial court thereafter granted the People’s motion to dismiss Case No. SCO76142, which had previously been consolidated with this case on the People’s motion. After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende) in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that appellant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he has not exercised this right.

1

Keeping in mind our review is limited to grounds for appeal occurring after entry of the negotiated disposition,1 we have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 17, 2011, an information was filed in this case, SC073473, charging appellant with one count of possession of marijuana for sale. This charge stemmed from appellant’s arrest on July 27, 2009, following a traffic stop for certain Vehicle Code violations, during which the officer noted a strong marijuana odor emanating from appellant’s vehicle. After appellant admitted possessing marijuana and directed the officer to a paper bag in the backseat containing five plastic bags with a total of 117.75 grams of marijuana, the officer conducted a more thorough search that revealed, among other things, over $1,300 in cash (mostly in $100 bills) and a cell phone text message consistent with a request to appellant to purchase marijuana.2 On May 26, 2011, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of possessing marijuana for sale. However, after filing a motion to suppress evidence seized during his July 27, 2009 arrest (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), appellant ultimately decided to change his plea to no contest pursuant to a negotiated disposition. After accepting this plea, the trial court granted appellant’s request to proceed immediately to sentencing.