People v. Wright CA3

Filed 8/19/16 P. v. Wright CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C081518

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15F02328)

PAUL LYNN WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Paul Lynn Wright asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I In a search of defendant’s home, police found over $4,000 in cash, four digital scales, pay-owe sheets, two live shotgun shells, three handguns, seven pounds of processed marijuana, 500 grams of concentrated cannabis (honey oil), four ounces of methamphetamine, 10 hydrocodone pills, 36 Ecstasy pills, 40 morphine pills, and additional narcotics packaging. In addition, officers found on defendant’s person

1

18.7 grams of methamphetamine and just under $200 in cash. And in a storage unit belonging to defendant, police found brass knuckles along with 4.28 grams of methamphetamine. In exchange for the dismissal of certain charges and a stipulated six-year eight- month sentence, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378 -- count 2), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)1 -- count 3), and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359 -- count 4). Defendant also admitted a prior strike conviction allegation, alleging a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in 1986. The trial court imposed an aggregate term of six years eight months in prison, consisting of four years on count 2 (the middle term doubled for the strike) and 16 months each on counts 3 and 4 (one-third the middle term, doubled for the strike). The trial court awarded 464 days of presentence credit and ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $120 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and a $90 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. Defendant filed a timely supplemental brief asserting various contentions. Defendant contends the use of his prior strike to double his current sentence constitutes double jeopardy. This is not so. “[T]he use of prior convictions to enhance a later sentence under a recidivism statute, such as the Three Strikes law, does not offend