People v. Covarrubias CA2/6

Filed 7/23/15 P. v. Covarrubias CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B262418 (Super. Ct. No. 2011026104) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

DANIEL JOSEPH COVARRUBIAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Joseph Covarrubias appeals his conviction by plea to possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), entered after appellant filed two motions to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) and withdrew the motions pursuant to a negotiated plea. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation with 150 days county jail and a one-year driver's license suspension (Veh. Code, § 13202). Appellant was ordered to pay, among other things, a $404.23 criminal justice administrative fee (Gov. Code, §§ 29550, 29550.1), a $50 crime lab fine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), a $150 drug program fine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), $300 restitution, and a $142 monthly probation fee. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.

On June 3, 2015, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant. The preliminary hearing transcript and probation report reflect that appellant and Daniel Lopez sold cocaine to a confidential informant in a controlled buy. After appellant was arrested, Ventura County Deputy Sheriff Javier Chavez made a preliminary search of appellant's cell phone, then obtained a search warrant to search the entire contents of the cell phone. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125- 126.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.