People v. Grayson CA3

Filed 2/17/16 P. v. Grayson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C078351

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. NCR83779, NCR87557 ) PAUL ERIC GRAYSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Paul Eric Grayson has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) On March 7, 2012, defendant sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant. He was charged in Tehama County case No. NCR83779 with transportation and sale of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, former § 11379, subd. (a), Stats. 2013, ch. 504,

1

§ 2.)1 It was also alleged defendant had a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)) and had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). On July 29, 2013, defendant was charged in Tehama County case No. NCR87557 with failure to appear in Tehama County case No. NCR83779, with the special allegations he was released on bail or his own recognizance at the time and has served three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 1320, subd. (b), 12022.1, 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant pleaded no contest to transportation and sale of methamphetamine (Tehama County case No. NCR83779) and failure to appear (Tehama County case No. NCR87557), and the remaining charges in both cases were dismissed. The trial court sentenced him to serve the upper term of four years for the transportation and sale of methamphetamine, and eight months consecutive (one-third the midterm) for the failure to appear. It also imposed various fines and fees, and awarded defendant 75 days of presentence custody credit. Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the cases and requests this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending he was wrongly denied probation based on the probation officer’s representation that he lacked remorse. He claims this was error because he wrote a letter to the trial court in which he did express remorse. We conclude there was no error.