People v. Elves CA6

Filed 3/9/16 P. v. Elves CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H042553 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS150322A)

v.

RICHARD LLOYD ELVES, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, Richard Lloyd Elves, Jr., (defendant) pleaded no contest to possession for sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 113511 on or about February 18, 2015. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that raises no specific issues. Counsel requests that this court conduct an independent review of the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that he advised defendant, in a letter dated September 21, 2015, of the nature of the appellant’s opening brief and defendant’s right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. By letter dated October 14, 2015, this court advised defendant that his appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that does not raise any specific issues, that this court must now examine the entire record on appeal 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.

to determine whether there is any arguable issue as required by Wende, and that defendant was entitled to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days after the date of the letter. The time has elapsed, and we have received no response from defendant. I Facts and Proceedings By complaint filed on February 27, 2015, it was alleged that defendant committed the following six offenses on or about February 18, 2015: possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a felony (§ 11378) (count 1); possession for sale of a controlled substance (heroin), a felony (§ 11351) (count 2); possession of a device for unlawfully injecting or smoking a controlled substance, a misdemeanor (§ 11364, subd. (a)) (count 3); possession of a controlled substance (cyclobenzaprine and gabapentin) without a prescription, a misdemeanor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4060) (count 4); possession of a controlled substance (hydrocodone), a misdemeanor (§ 11350, subd. (a)) (count 5); possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, an infraction (§ 11357, subd. (b) (count 6).) The complaint further alleged that, as to count 1, defendant had suffered two prior convictions involving controlled substances within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (c), and that, as to count 2, defendant had suffered two prior convictions involving controlled substances within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (a). On May 29, 2015, before any preliminary hearing was held, the parties announced they had reached a plea bargain. Under its terms, defendant would plead no contest to violating section 11351 (count 2) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of three years to be served in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), in this case (case No. SS150322A). He would also plead no contest to the sole charge of violating section 11350 in case No. MS329496A in exchange for a 364-day sentence to be served concurrently to the three-year sentence in this case. The remaining counts and allegations