Filed 10/27/14 P. v. Solano CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIEL LEONARD SOLANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B253756

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA060019)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric P 

Harmon, Judge. Affirmed.

Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies conducted a traffic stop of a car driven by 

defendant Daniel Leonard Solano. Crystal Marie Almanza, Solano’s girlfriend, was in 

the front passenger seat. Inside Almanza’s purse, deputies found a loaded revolver and a 

plastic bag containing approximately 50 grams of methamphetamine. One of the 

deputies searched Solano and recovered over $3,000 in hundred and twenty dollar bills. 

Deputies subsequently searched Solano’s hotel room and discovered ammunition, 

prescription pills, a digital scale, and several men’s watches. None of the pills was

packaged in prescription bottles.1

The People charged Solano in an information with possession for sale of 

methamphetamine (Health & Safe. Code, § 11378) with an allegation that he was 

personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)), possession for sale of 

dihydrocodeinone (Health & Safe. Code, § 11351), possession for sale of oxycodone 

(ibid.), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and 

unlawful possession of ammunition (id., § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). The information 

specially alleged Solano had been convicted of one serious or violent felony within the 

meaning of the three strikes law (id., §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and 

of two drug-related convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section

11370.2, subdivisions (a) and (c).2 Represented by counsel, Solano entered a plea of not 

guilty and denied the special allegations.

Prior to trial, the trial court heard and denied Solano’s two separate motions

pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 to replace his appointed counsel. On 

the morning trial was to begin, Solano entered a negotiated plea of no contest to 

possession for sale of dihydrocodeinone and admitted he had suffered one prior strike 

 

1 The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript.

2 The People charged Almanza as a codefendant and she later pleaded guilty. ~(CT 

44-50)~
3

conviction. At the time he entered his plea, the court advised Solano of his constitutional 

rights and the nature and consequences of the plea, which he stated he understood. 

Counsel for Solano joined in the waivers of Solano’s constitutional rights. The trial court 

expressly found that Solano’s waivers, plea, and admission were voluntary, knowing, and 

intelligent.

The trial court sentenced Solano in accordance with the plea agreement to an 

aggregate state prison term of eight years, which was the upper four-year term doubled 

under the three strikes law. The court awarded Solano 308 days of presentence custody 

credit and imposed statutory fines, fees, and assessments. The court dismissed the 

remaining counts and special allegations pursuant to the negotiated agreement.

DISCUSSION

Solano filed a timely notice of appeal asserting that his trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance. The trial court granted his request for a certificate of probable 

cause without an explanation and, from our perspective, without any basis in the record.

We appointed counsel to represent Solano on appeal. After examining the record,

counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On July 29, 2014 we advised Solano that 

he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. 

We have received no response.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Solano’s attorney on appeal 

has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and there are no arguable issues. 

(See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; 

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 

441.) The record fails to demonstrate that defense counsel provided ineffective 

assistance at any time during the proceedings in the trial court. (See Strickland v. 

Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.].)
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SEGAL, J.*

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

ZELON, J.

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.