P. v. Caylor CA2/6

Filed 4/24/13 P. v. Caylor CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B240882 (Super. Ct. No. 2011031647) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

VINCENT ORLANDO CAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Vincent Orlando Caylor appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted he had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and four prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant entered a negotiated plea after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial court struck appellant’s prior strike conviction, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on formal probation for 36 months, with various terms and conditions. On September 1, 2011, at 12:43 p.m., Port Hueneme Police Officers saw appellant fidgeting and twitching as he walked across the street. The officers followed him into a nearby parking lot and questioned him. Appellant’s constricted pupils, red watery eyes, missing front teeth, and the chemical odor of his breath indicated he was under the influence of methamphetamine. At the officers’ request, appellant briefly

closed his eyes; he had eyelid tremors. During a pat-down search, one of the officers found a glass methamphetamine pipe and crystal methamphetamine in appellant’s pants pockets. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124 ; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED