Filed 12/3/13 P. v. Ortiz CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JULIO CES AR ORTIZ,

Defendant and Appellant. B246027

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA126147)

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

Michael Cowell, Judge. Affirmed.

Nadezhda M. Habinek, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

______________________________________________On September 19

, 2012, an information was filed charging a ppellant Julio

Cesar Ortiz with a single count of possession of a controlled substance

(methamphetamine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377,

subdivision (a). It was further a lleged that appellant had suffered a prior strike

conviction

-- attempted carjacking ( Pen. Code, § § 664/215 (a) ) in April 2006 f or purposes of Penal Code section s 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667,

subdivision s (b) through (i)

, and that he had suffered two prior convictions

-- attempted carjacking and second degree burglary (§ 459)

-- within the meaning of

Penal Code s e ction 667.5 , subdivision (b)

. Appellant pled not guilty. He admitted the priors. Two deputies testified to

seeing appellant discard a small white bindle in a motel parking lot. The parties

stipulated that a white plastic bindle collected by deputies a t the time of appellant’s

arrest contained .25 grams of methamphetamine. Testifying on his own behalf,

appellant denied discarding the bindle. The jury found appellant guilty as charged.

The court denied appell a nt’s motion to strike the strike. The co urt struck the

Penal C ode section 667.5 , subdivision (b) allegations. The court sentenced

appellant to a term of six year s , the upper term of three years doubled due to the

strike prior. A ppellant was given credit for 28 4 days of custody, 142 actual and
142 good time/work time. The court imposed a $30 criminal conviction
assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373, a $40 court operations

assessment pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), and a
restitution fine of $240 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). A
parole restitution fine of $240 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45 was imposed and stayed.

After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief

raising no issues, but asking thi s court to independently review the record on

appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See Smith v. Robbins(2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On August 2 , 2013, we advised appellant he had 30

days within which to submit by brief or letter any c ontentions or argument he

wished this court to consider. No response was received.

This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v.

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441 to 442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney

has fully compl ied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues

exist. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MANELLA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P

. J.

WILLHITE, J.