Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Quincent Earl Robinson


February 8, 2012


(Super. Ct. No. 10F06408)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , Acting P. J.

P. v. Robinson



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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 convicted defendant Quincent Earl Robinson of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count one) and possession of hydrocodone and methadone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count two). He was sentenced to state prison for two concurrent terms of three years, awarded 224 days' custody credit and 224 days' conduct credit. He was also ordered to pay a $600 restitution fine, a $600 restitution fine suspended unless his parole was revoked, an $80 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $60 court facilities fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $287 main jail booking fee and a $59 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2).

Facts and Proceedings

On September 28, 2010, at approximately 5:00 a.m., Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputy David Treat responded to a 911 call regarding suspicious activity at an apartment complex. Upon arriving, Treat observed a man holding onto a wrought iron fence and bent over at a 90-degree angle. As Treat approached the man, he noticed that a sheathed hunting knife was hanging from the man's belt. Treat identified himself as a deputy sheriff and tried to communicate with the man but he received no response.

Deputy Treat observed signs that the man was intoxicated and unable to care for himself. Treat placed the man under arrest for public intoxication, retrieved the man's wallet from his pocket, and identified him as defendant. Shortly thereafter, Deputies Duncan and Hoganson arrived on the scene.

After defendant was placed in a patrol car, Deputy Hoganson retrieved a black canvas bag and a black plastic bag from the ground approximately four feet from where defendant had been standing. Deputy Treat decided to book the items for safekeeping.

Inside one of the bags, Deputy Treat found a quart-sized freezer bag that contained a plastic sandwich bag. The sandwich bag contained nine pills later determined to be methadone.

The freezer bag also contained three additional sandwich bags. Each sandwich bag contained a quantity of methamphetamine.

In addition, the freezer bag contained a film canister that held another quantity of methamphetamine.

Deputy Treat found a prescription pill bottle that contained 16 acetaminophen hydrocodone pills. He also found two non-functioning cellular telephones and a small digital scale.

A thorough search of defendant's person yielded carisoprodol pills, currency in various denominations, and marijuana. Defendant's estranged wife testified that she gave him the money several days prior to his arrest.

At defendant's preliminary hearing, his suppression motion was denied and a count of possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) was dismissed. At trial, the suppression motion was renewed and again denied.

Defendant moved to exclude his prior felony convictions. The trial court denied the motion but agreed to sanitize the convictions. The People represented that evidence of prior convictions would be presented only if defendant testified. Defendant did not testify.

Defendant moved to suppress the drug evidence based on chain of custody issues. The motion was denied. Defendant also moved to exclude evidence that he was carrying a knife at the time of his arrest. That motion, too, was denied.


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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

Our examination of the record discloses that No. 1 of the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that count 1 is the principal term, not a consecutive full term; thus, the "x" in the "consecutive full term" box must be deleted.

Our review also discloses that the $60 court facilities fee must be added to the abstract of judgment. At sentencing this fee was incorrectly termed a "court security fee" which may have caused confusion inasmuch as another court security fee had already been imposed.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.


The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: BUTZ , J. MAURO , J.


© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.