People v. Carter CA2/8 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 11/4/14 P. v. Carter CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION EIGHT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          B254822
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BA413932)
    v.
    HEATHER CARTER,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ray G.
    Jurado, Judge. Affirmed.
    Maria Leftwich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ************
    Heather Carter appeals from a judgment of conviction for offering to sell a
    controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a))1 and possession for sale of
    a controlled substance (§ 11378). Her appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People
    v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende), raising no issues. We have reviewed the entire
    record and find no arguable issue. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    On May 15, 2012, Detective David Chapman of the Los Angeles Police
    Department posted an advertisement on the craigslist Web site looking for “Tina,” which
    is a word commonly used in drug transactions to mean methamphetamine. The title of
    the advertisement was “Have you seen Tina?” It stated he had been looking for his friend
    Tina all day and asked if anyone had seen her. He included an e-mail address to which
    responses could be sent. On May 20, 2012, the detective received an e-mail response to
    the advertisement saying, “Yes, cash only.” After some text message exchanges
    regarding how much Chapman wanted and the price, the detective and appellant arranged
    to meet at a CVS Pharmacy parking lot in Hollywood so that he could buy $200 worth of
    methamphetamine.
    That evening the detective and other members of the narcotics detail waited for
    appellant in the parking lot. As appellant was driving through the parking lot, the
    detective called the same number he had been texting. When appellant answered the
    phone, the detective asked where she was and she stated she was around the corner. He
    then saw appellant drive out of the lot. A patrol car pulled over appellant and officers
    took her into custody. A cell phone was removed from the front seat of her car and the
    detective viewed several text messages on that phone that he had sent.
    Appellant’s purse, which was located in the car, contained three bindles of
    methamphetamine and $66 in cash. Detective Chapman opined the bindles had a
    1      Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
    2
    combined street value of between $175 - $250. He also opined the methamphetamine
    found in appellant’s possession was for sale.
    In November 2013, appellant was charged with one count of offering to sell a
    controlled substance (methamphetamine) and one count of possession for sale of a
    controlled substance (methamphetamine). On February 27, 2014, a jury found appellant
    guilty on both counts. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant
    on formal probation for a period of three years with several terms and conditions,
    including that she serve 270 days in county jail. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
    DISCUSSION
    After counsel filed her Wende brief asking this court to independently review the
    entire record for arguable issues, appellant was advised she could file a supplemental
    brief with the court within 30 days. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having
    reviewed the entire record, we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with her
    responsibilities and find no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    ,
    123-124; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    FLIER, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    RUBIN, Acting P. J.
    GRIMES, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B254822

Filed Date: 11/4/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021