IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Siskiyou)
February 23, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JAMES SAMUEL HAMILTON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. MCYKCRBF090001109002)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie,j.
P. v. Hamilton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury found defendant James Samuel Hamilton guilty of selling or offering to sell marijuana. He admitted three prior felony convictions.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years. Execution of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years on conditions including 240 days of incarceration with credit for 14 days pursuant to the recent amendments to Penal Code section 4019. Defendant was ordered to pay an $800 restitution fine with all but $200 stayed pending revocation of probation, an $800 restitution fine suspended unless probation is violated, an $800 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, a $170 laboratory analysis fee, a $170 drug program fee, a $30 court security fee, and a $30 court facilities assessment. He was also ordered to reimburse the probation department for the cost of the presentence report, reimburse the county for appointed counsel fees, and pay a $148 booking fee.
In July 2009, defendant was arrested in a department store parking lot for attempting to sell an ounce of marijuana to an informant for the Siskiyou County Interagency Narcotics Task Force. At the time of the arrest, the informant was attempting to purchase marijuana from defendant's son, who was the target of the task force. When the informant arranged the present transaction with the son, the son directed the informant to meet with defendant in the parking lot to complete the purchase.
Defendant was in the parking lot when the informant and his supervisor from the task force arrived. The informant testified that after he and defendant agreed on a price of $200, defendant handed the informant a baggie of marijuana.
Defendant testified that he had a medical prescription for the marijuana and that he was in the parking lot to pick up his wife from work, just as he did every day. Defendant denied that his son had told him that the informant would meet him in the parking lot and denied that he (defendant) offered the marijuana for sale. Defendant claimed the conversation about price was a general conversation initiated by the task force member; the informant grabbed the marijuana from defendant; and he specifically told both men that the marijuana was for his personal use and was not for sale.
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 have elapsed, and we have 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , Acting P.J. DUARTE ,J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.