People v. Levos CA3

Filed 8/20/14 P. v. Levos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075072

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P13CRF0030)

v.

JEREMY DEAN LEVOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jeremy Dean Levos has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no errors and shall affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On December 27, 2012, detectives stopped the pickup truck in which defendant was riding, after they witnessed defendant and another man engaged in an apparent drug transaction with a known drug dealer. Detectives handcuffed defendant and walked him

1

to a corner of the parking lot where he was stopped. While standing in the lot, defendant dropped something behind his back and then “kicked over” a piece of broken asphalt with his foot near the dropped item. A search of the area revealed a small plastic bindle on the ground near defendant containing a useable amount of heroin. A search of defendant revealed a small plastic tube often used to snort or inhale controlled substances. The tube’s interior contained a light brown substance consistent with the device being used to inhale heroin. A jury found defendant guilty of possession of heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) The trial court placed defendant on four years of formal probation subject to various terms, including participation in the Salvation Army adult rehabilitation program, and imposed various fines, fees, and costs. DISCUSSION Defendant appeals. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.