Filed 8/13/14 P. v. Carlton CA6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

THE PEOPLE, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

ELWYN ALLAN CARLTON, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 H040528 

 (Santa Cruz County 

 Super. Ct. No. F25040) 

 Defendant Elwyn Allan Carlton was driving a vehicle when it was stopped by the 

police just after midnight because the vehicle was weaving. Defendant told the officers 

that his driver’s license had been suspended. The police impounded defendant’s vehicle 

and did an inventory search. A baggie containing 12.6 grams of methamphetamine was 

found in a hidden compartment under the center console of defendant’s vehicle. A scale 

with white powdery residue on it was found inside the center console, and baggies were 

found next to the center console. Defendant was arrested. A search of defendant’s 

person turned up four additional baggies of the same type as those in the vehicle in one of 

his pockets and $468 in cash in another pocket. 

 Defendant was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine for 

sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and false compartment activity (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11366.8, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that he had suffered a prior strike conviction 
2

(Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prior controlled substance conviction (Health & 

Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)), and that he had served prison terms for nine prior felony 

convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). 

 Defendant pleaded no contest to the three substantive counts and admitted five of 

the prison priors, the strike prior, and the controlled substance prior in exchange for a 

nine-year ceiling on his prison sentence. The probation report stated that Penal Code 

section 654 barred punishment for both the possession and transportation counts because 

these two counts “were one course of conduct . . . .” The probation report recommended 

a concurrent term for the false compartment count. 

 The court dismissed the strike prior, which was more than 30 years old. It 

imposed the middle term of two years for the possession for sale count, a consecutive 

one-year term for the transportation count, and a consecutive eight-month term for the 

false compartment count. The court stated that it was selecting consecutive terms 

“because these are distinct criminal acts, with different elements.” It found that Penal 

Code section 654 did not apply. “The Court finds the false-compartment activity does 

not merge with the transportation, and I’m electing to not make a 654 finding.” The court 

imposed consecutive one-year prison terms for two of the five prison priors and struck 

the other three prison priors. A three-year consecutive term was imposed for the prior 

controlled substance conviction. The total prison term was eight years and eight months. 

 When the defense interposed a Penal Code section 654 objection to the imposition 

of consecutive terms for the transportation and false compartment counts, the court 

overruled the objection. It said: “Well, to be quite candid, if I did that, then I’d just add a 

year from another one of the priors. It was my intent to get to eight years, eight months 

so that I could respect the nine-year lid, but I do feel that the sentence is appropriate.” 

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging only his sentence. 

 Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and 

the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written 
3

argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant 

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have 

concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 _______________________________ 

 Mihara, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

_____________________________ 

Premo, Acting P. J. 

_____________________________ 

Elia, J.