IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
April 27, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
TRAVER RUSSELL FARNER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 09F9657)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye, P.J.
P. v. Farner
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On December 30, 2009, defendant Traver Russell Farner was charged with possession of cocaine for sale (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); possession of Ecstasy (MDMA) for sale (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); possession of Oxycontin for sale (count 3; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); possession of morphine for sale (count 4; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); possession of methadone for sale (count 5; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); possession of marijuana for sale (count 6; Health & Saf. Code, § 11359); possession of a controlled substance with firearm (count 7; Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)); and unlawful firearm activity (count 8; Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (e)). It was also alleged as to all counts that defendant was armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1) [further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code].)
On March 9, 2010, defendant pled no contest to counts 1, 5, and 7, in return for a maximum prison sentence of three years and the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations.
On June 29, 2010, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to three years in state prison (the midterm) on count 1, with midterm three-year sentences on counts 5 and 7 to run concurrently. The court awarded four days of presentence custody credit (two actual days and two days conduct credit).
The trial court imposed the following fines, fees, and assessments: a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $200 restitution fine, suspended unless defendant's parole was revoked (§ 1202.45); a $200 base fine (§ 1463.001); a $200 state penalty assessment (§ 1464, subd. (a)); a $200 DNA penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.6); a $60 DNA penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.7); a $100 state court facilities construction fee (Gov. Code, § 70372); a $140 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76245); a $40 state criminal fine surcharge (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)); a $90 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); a $90 criminal convictions assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373); and a $190 criminal laboratory fee, comprised of $50 (Health and Saf. Code, § 11372.5), $50 (§ 1464), $10 (§ 1465.7), $5 (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), $15 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7), $25 (Gov. Code, § 70372), and $35 (Gov. Code, § 76245).
The stipulated factual basis for defendant's plea, taken from the Shasta Interagency Narcotic Task Force (SINTF) report, is as follows: On November 16, 2009, SINTF agents, serving a search warrant at defendant's residence, found a 12-gauge shotgun behind a pillow on defendant's bed. They also found shotgun shells, scales, pay/owe sheets, a pill cutter, packaging materials, and various amounts of marijuana, rock cocaine, Oxycontin, Ecstasy, methadone, and morphine, among other substances. Cash in the amount of $4,831 was found in a safe in defendant's closet. During the search, cell phone and text messages came in which requested drugs from defendant.
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 the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we 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.
We concur: HULL, J. HOCH, J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.