People v. Alvarez CA4/1

Filed 2/14/22 P. v. Alvarez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D079132

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD284127)

JESUS ALVAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Jesus Alvarez of sale of a controlled substance (Health

and Saf. Code,1 § 11379, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated trial, the jury found true Alvarez suffered a prior conviction under section 11352, within the meaning

1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.

of Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11); the jury also found true an alleged strike prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Alvarez brought a motion to dismiss the strike prior under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court denied the motion and sentenced Alvarez to a determinate term of four years (the low term of two years, doubled because of the strike prior). Alvarez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Alvarez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offense are well summarized in the statement of facts in appellant’s opening brief. We will include them here for convenience. A. The Prosecution Case The prosecution’s first witness, San Diego Police Department Officer Joseph Charlot, testified about an undercover narcotics buy-bust operation that he was involved with on November 13, 2019, in the East Village area of downtown San Diego. On that date, Officer Charlot was working in an undercover capacity downtown in the Crime Suppression Team. Officer Charlot’s objective was to purchase a controlled substance from whoever would sell it to him. At approximately, 10:00 a.m., Officer Charlot arrived in the East Village area wearing a recording device and with prerecorded bills which he had logged all of the currency serial numbers down. At approximately 10:00 a.m., at the intersection of 14th and Imperial streets, Officer Charlot told an African-American male that he was looking for