People v. Lamply CA2/5

Filed 7/18/14 P. v. Lamply CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B252981

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA407611) v.

BERNARD LAMPLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed. Kevin Michele Finkelstein for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Defendant and appellant Bernard Lampley was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine base, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Defendant admitted suffering prior convictions under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § § 667, subds. (a)-(d), 1170.12, subds. (b)-(i)). 1 The trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months in state prison, calculated as the low term of 16 month, doubled under the three strikes law as modified by Proposition 36. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal from the judgment. On May 12, 2014, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, asking this court to independently review the record for arguable appellate contentions under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant filed a 128 page supplemental brief raising a variety of issues, all without merit, as discussed below. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Hall (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 128, 132.) Defendant was observed by narcotics officers throwing what appeared to be a cocaine pipe onto the roof of a building as officers approached. An officer saw a small rock of cocaine base, weighing .05 grams, fall from defendant’s hand to the ground. The cocaine was seized, booked into a sealed evidence envelope, and analyzed by a chemist. The jury rejected the testimony of defendant and a co-arrestee, Athena Dowell, that the rock of cocaine belonged to Dowell and was not possessed by defendant. The jury also rejected defendant’s contention that the evidence was fabricated due to a numbering error in the identification of the cocaine in the police and property reports. Defendant’s first contention is that he was denied due process because the trial court did not award him custody credit for time he served in a separate case, No. BA390654, for which he was on probation. The trial court terminated probation in case No. BA390654, without imposing sentence. The court therefore had no occasion to award credit for time served on the probation violation matter. To the extent defendant