People v. Riley CA3 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/9/13 P. v. Riley 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    (Butte)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C073922
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. CM038023)
    v.
    LAWRENCE VAN RILEY,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    On January 17, 2013, officers conducting a postrelease community supervision
    search of defendant Lawrence Van Riley’s residence found 6.3 grams of
    methamphetamine, $1,200 in cash, Ziploc baggies, a syringe containing 25 cc’s of
    methamphetamine, and other drug paraphernalia.
    Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale.
    (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, a prior strike allegation
    was dismissed with a Harvey waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 754
    .) The trial
    1
    court sentenced defendant to three years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees,
    and awarded 156 days’ presentence credit (78 actual and 78 conduct).
    Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
    We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
    brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and
    determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)
    
    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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed,
    and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination
    of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
    favorable to defendant.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    RAYE               , P. J.
    We concur:
    NICHOLSON              , J.
    HOCH                   , J.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C073922

Filed Date: 12/9/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021