People v. Palacios CA2/5

Filed 9/18/14 P. v. Palacios CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B254109

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA416056) v.

PEDRO PALACIOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean Arthur, Judge. Affirmed. Miriam K. Billington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Defendant and appellant Pedro Palacios was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine base for the purpose of sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351, subdivision (a). Defendant admitted serving seven prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and suffering seven prior convictions for sale or possession for sale of controlled substances (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)). The trial court also found defendant in violation of probation in case No. BA406600. The court sentenced defendant to 20 years in the county jail. Defendant was sentenced to the upper term of 5 years on the charged offense, enhanced by a total of 15 years for the prior convictions under Health & Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The court struck the prior prison terms enhancements for purposes of sentencing. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On August 7, 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 letter brief with the court arguing (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel by multiple attorneys throughout the proceedings, (2) there was incorrect prior sentencing and commitment times in connection with case No. BA364020, which was confused with case No. BA406600 during sentencing; (3) counsel was ineffective in her questioning regarding where defendant obtained the $71 in his possession at the time of his arrest; and (4) counsel had inadequate time to prepare. We have completed our independent review of the record. Our review of the record reveals there are no arguable contentions on appeal and defendant’s contentions lack merit. The record contains substantial evidence that defendant possessed cocaine base for the purpose of sale. The arresting officer observed defendant in the skid row area of Los Angeles, a location known for narcotic sales. Defendant secreted multiple bindles of cocaine base in his mouth. After trying to swallow the bindles, defendant spit them out