People v. Richardson CA3

Filed 12/7/23 P. v. Richardson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098337

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23FE000824)

v.

JOHN WESLEY RICHARDSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Wesley Richardson filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On January 17, 2023, Sacramento Police Officers Tsverov and Barbee came across defendant sitting in his car. The officers contacted defendant and searched him

1

and his vehicle. Officer Barbee found a baggie containing rock cocaine in defendant’s pocket. The officers then searched the car and found cocaine, heroin, counterfeit oxycodone pills containing fentanyl, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Defendant was charged with four counts of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) for the heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, and oxycodone pills with fentanyl and one count of possession of a tear gas weapon (Pen. Code, § 22810, subd. (a)). The People also alleged that defendant had suffered a prior conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12.) The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. Defendant ultimately pleaded no contest to possession of heroin and the remaining charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed disposition of 270 days in jail and two years’ probation. The court also granted 153 days of custody credit. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.