People v. Richardson CA3 ( 2023 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
EARL, P. J.
We concur:
/s/
ROBIE, J.
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
3