1 Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Thammavong CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Glenn)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. CHANH THAMMAVONG, Defendant and Appellant. C072107 (Super. Ct. No. 12NCR09342)

Appointed counsel for de fendant Chanh Thammavong file d an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any argua ble issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable e rror that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)2 Defendant was charged with transporta tion of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) He waived his right to a jury tr ial and submitted the matter to the court based on the following stipulated facts: “On February 11, 2012 at approximately 3:19 p.m. Orland Police Offi cer Kyle Cessna was on patrol, driving a marked OPD police vehicle. On Fifth St. north of Tehama St. within the City of Orland, Cessna observed an individual riding a bicycle. The bicyclist was heading south on Fifth St., the same direction as Cessna was travelli ng. There is a stop sign on the corner of Fifth and Tehama, regulating traffic on Fift h St. Officer Cessna observed that the bicyclist failed to stop for [the] stop sign, and just continued across Tehama on Fifth. The bicyclist then cut diagona lly across Fifth St. and [Officer Cessna] got the rider’s attention by honking the horn on the patrol ca r. The bicyclist looked back at the patrol car and Officer Cessna recognized him as [def endant]. Cessna motioned for [defendant] to come to Cessna’s location at the patrol ca r. As [defendant star ted] to walk toward Cessna, Cessna observed the defendant reach in to his pants pocket and then put his hands behind his back. Cessno [ sic ] could see that [defendant] was holding something in his hand, but could not tell what it was. Cessna st arted to walk toward the defendant and saw the defendant drop what appeared to be a pack of gum and start to walk toward Cessna. Cessna felt that the defendant was trying to co nceal something by his actions; he decided to detain [defendant]. [Defendant] was ha ndcuffed and asked to sit on the curb. Cessna picked up the pack et of gum that defendant had drop ped. Cessna opened the pack and [saw] some white tissue paper. Inside the tissue paper was a piece of white plastic [] tied with a knot. Inside the knotted piece of pl astic was a white crystalline substance, which Cessna believed was methamphetamine. [Defe ndant] was arrested and the white plastic
and its contents were seized. “Officer Cessna, later in the day on June 29, weighed and tested the white crystalline substance. It tested pres umptively positive for methamphetamine and weighed out to approximately .2 grams, ne t weight. Subsequent laboratory testing3 confirmed that the substance was methampheta mine. Senior Criminalist Kirsten Wallace of the California Department of Justice, Chico Laboratory tested the substance and verified that it was methamphetamine. The net weight of the methamphetamine submitted to the crime lab was .10 grams. Both Officer Cessna an d Criminalist Wallace would offer an opinion, based upon trai ning and experience, that .10 grams of methamphetamine is a ‘usabl e amount’ of the drug.” The trial court found defendant guilty of transportation of methamphetamine, suspended imposition of senten ce, and placed defend ant on probation on the condition he serve 10 days with credit for time served. Th e trial court also imposed various fines and fees, including a $200 penal fine and a $240 restitution fine. Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the ri ght to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More th an 30 days elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant. Ha ving undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

ROBIE , J.

HOCH , J.