Filed 8/13/14 P. v. Carlton CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Car lton was driving a vehicle when it was stopped by the police just after midnight because the vehicle was weaving. Defendan t told the officers that his driver’s license had been suspende d. 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 in side 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 cas h in another pocket. Defendant was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), transpor tation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and false co mpartment activity (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.8, subd. (a)). It was fu rther alleged that he had suffe red a prior strike conviction2 (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prio r controlled substance conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)), a nd that he had served prison terms for nine prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant pleaded no contes t to the three substantive co unts 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. Th e 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 fa lse compartment count. The court dismissed the strike prior, wh ich was more than 30 years old. It imposed the middle term of two years for th e 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 Cour t finds the false-compartment activity does not merge with the transportation, and I’m el ecting 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 pris on term was eight years and eight months. When the defense interposed a Penal Co de 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 th at, 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 written3 argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the op portunity. Pursuant

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have re viewed 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.