P. v. Como CA4/1 ( 2013 )

Filed 8/7/13 P. v. Como CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D062702
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD183138,
SCD198455)
JEFFREY COMO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M.
Szumowski and Michael T. Smyth, Judges. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jeffrey J. Como appeals a judgment following his convictions of selling or
furnishing a controlled substance, namely cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352,
subd. (a)),1 and carrying a concealed weapon (former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2004, Como was convicted of one count of carrying a concealed weapon
(former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)) in San Diego County Superior Court Case
No. SCD183138 (Case B). The trial court granted him probation for three years.
In 2006, Como handed cocaine base to codefendant Jimmy who, in turn, sold it to
an undercover police officer. In San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD198455
(Case A), a complaint charged Como with selling or furnishing a controlled substance,
namely cocaine base (§ 11352, subd. (a)), and also alleged he: (1) sold it within the
meaning of Penal Code section 1203.073, subdivision (b)(7); (2) had various Health and
Safety Code convictions within the meanings of sections 11370.2, subdivision (a), 11370,
subdivision (a), and Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11); and (3) had two
prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Como's probation in Case B was revoked.
Following trial in Case A, the jury found Como guilty of the charged offense and
found true the allegation he sold cocaine base within the meaning of Penal Code section
1 All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise
specified.
2
1203.073, subdivision (b)(7). Como admitted the truth of the other allegations in the
complaint.
At his December 19, 2006, sentencing, the trial court sentenced Como to the lower
term of three years for his Case A conviction and imposed a consecutive three-year
enhancement for one of the section 11370.2, subdivision (a), allegations, for a total term
of six years in prison. The court sentenced Como to a concurrent two-year term for his
Case B conviction. The court then suspended proceedings under Welfare and Institutions
Code section 3151 and referred Como for treatment at the California Rehabilitation
Center (CRC).
On April 30, 2012, the trial court vacated Como's CRC commitment. On August
13, the court reinstated criminal proceedings in Cases A and B. On August 20, the court
sentenced Como in Cases A and B to the same terms it imposed in 2006. In Case A, it
awarded him 1,619 days of actual custody credits and 272 days of conduct credits, for a
total of 1,891 custody credits. In Case B, it awarded him 1,712 days of actual custody
credits and 265 days of conduct credits, for a total of 1,977 custody credits. Como timely
filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgments in Case A and Case B.
DISCUSSION
Como's appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings
below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the judgment, but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel has not identified any possible issues
for our review.
3
We granted Como permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but
he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably
arguable appellate issues. Como has been competently represented by counsel on this
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
4