People v. Robles CA4/2 ( 2021 )

Filed 4/14/21 P. v. Robles CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, No. E075545
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1902193)
MARK ANTHONY ROBLES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Johnson,
Judge. Affirmed.
Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Mark Anthony Robles guilty of
possession of methamphetamine while in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4573.6;
count 1) and possession of methamphetamine after having suffered a prior
1
conviction that required registration under Penal Code section 290, subdivision (c)
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 2).1 Defendant was sentenced to a
total term of four years in prison with 456 days’ credit for time served and ordered
to pay a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), $80 in court
operations assessments (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and $60 in criminal conviction fees
(Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our
independent review of the record, we find no arguable issue and affirm the
judgment.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On January 30, 2018, around 12:30 p.m., Riverside County Deputy Sheriff
Ryan Clark was working at the Robert Presley Detention Center when he was
alerted to an incident regarding a possible overdose. Deputy Clark thereafter
reviewed surveillance video of a holding cell occupied by several inmates. He
saw one inmate, later identified as Sean Ray, take out suspected methamphetamine
and heroin from his sock and pass it out to the other inmates. The other inmates,
one of which was defendant, were seen ingesting the suspected narcotics. After
the inmates used the narcotics, Deputy Clark then observed one inmate, later
identified as Robert McNeil, look dazed and confused and eventually fall and
stumble to the ground. Defendant and another inmate attempted to help McNeil
1 The information also alleged that defendant had suffered three prior
prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). These prior prison terms were
ultimately stricken by the trial court.
2
by trying to wake him up, pouring water over his head, in his mouth, and on his
groin. Defendant then used a spoon to put suspected methamphetamine in
McNeil’s mouth.
Another deputy arrived and removed everyone from the holding cell. All
the inmates were subsequently searched. No drugs or contraband were found on
defendant. The search of Ray revealed methamphetamine and suspected heroin.
An analysis of the substances found on Ray established Ray possessed 0.4 grams
of methamphetamine. The other substance tested negative for heroin but held
trace amounts of amphetamines. Deputy Clark opined that 0.4 grams was a usable
amount of methamphetamine.
During an interview with Deputy Clark, defendant appeared nervous, his
pupils were dilated, and he was having tremors. Based on his training and
experience with narcotics cases and his observations of defendant, Deputy Clark
opined that defendant was under the influence of narcotics. During the interview,
defendant, however, denied using methamphetamine. In addition, when
questioned about his pupils, defendant claimed that his eyes have always reacted
that way. Defendant explained that he saw a guy overdosing and attempted to
help. He also repeatedly stated that the drugs were not his and that Ray had given
him something that was “ ‘black.’ ” Defendant heard Ray say the black substance
was fentanyl and heroin. At the conclusion of the interview, defendant provided a
3
urine sample. Defendant’s urine sample tested positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine.
On this same day, Riverside County Sheriff’s Investigator Oscar Ortiz
conducted a drug evaluation of defendant. During the evaluation, Investigator
Ortiz observed that defendant was fidgety, he was moving back and forth, his
pupils were dilated, he was clenching his jaw, his tongue was white and pasty, and
his pulse was elevated. Based on his training and experience, Investigator Ortiz
opined that his observations of defendant were consistent with a person who was
under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant such as
methamphetamine.
Over defense objection, the trial court took judicial notice of defendant’s
prior sexual battery while restrained conviction (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)) that
required him to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. A certified copy of
this conviction was also admitted into evidence.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. He admitted that he had snorted
some of the substance provided by Ray from a spoon, but believed he was snorting
heroin. He then saw McNeil overdosing and tried to help. Ray told defendant to
give McNeil some of the drugs to help with the overdosing. Defendant then did
so, without even thinking. He also threw water on McNeil. Defendant indicated
that he did not have any drugs on his person when he was searched and reiterated
that his pupils always “flare up” at night. He admitted that he had pleaded no
4
contest to sexual battery in violation of Penal Code section 243.4 in 2002, and that
he was convicted of failing to register in 2012 (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (b)) and
failing to report (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (b)) in 2016.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders), setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and
potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent
review of the record.
Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the
court in its search of the record for error:
(1) “Was the evidence sufficient to support the convictions?”
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief,
and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine
whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant,
would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-
112.)
5
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
FIELDS
J.
6