Court Opinion

ID: 9944613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 18:02:51.760853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:20:01.609206
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/26/24 P. v. King 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098292

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 22CF05183)

           v.

 SOMA RAINBOW KING,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Soma Rainbow King asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                                                  BACKGROUND
         On October 22, 2022, a Chico Police Department officer responded to reports of
someone selling bicycles out of the back of a truck. The officer located the truck and saw
a number of bicycles in the back. A female was talking to defendant by the truck, but
when she saw the officer, she left. Defendant volunteered, “It’s not what it looks like.”

                                                             1
Defendant identified himself as John Miller. He subsequently gave the officer his wallet,
which contained a benefits card bearing his true name. The officer discovered defendant
was on postrelease community supervision and arrested him for an active felony arrest
warrant. In searching defendant, the officer found a sock in his pocket, inside of which
were three bags containing fentanyl and mannitol with a total weight of 73.57 grams.
The officer also found $1,920 in cash in a “bellyband” defendant was wearing. In the
truck, the officer found a bag containing 18.90 grams of methamphetamine, and
additional fentanyl. There were a number of “narcotics-related instant messages” found
on defendant’s cell phone.
       A complaint deemed an information charged defendant with possession for sale of
a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 1), possession for sale of a
controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2), and giving false
information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a); count 3).
       After waiving his rights, defendant pleaded no contest to count 2, possession for
sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) in exchange for dismissal of
the remaining counts. Defendant understood his maximum exposure was three years in
prison. The parties agreed police reports and the probable cause declaration summarized
in the probation report furnished the factual basis for defendant’s plea. Defendant waived
the right to have circumstances in aggravation supporting imposition of an upper term
sentence proven beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury trial or court trial, and agreed that
the court could find aggravating circumstances “based on the documents described
above,” and that the court could sentence him to the lower, middle, or upper term. The
trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts with a
Harvey1 waiver.

1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

                                             2
       Defendant was referred to drug court, but was found not suitable.
       At sentencing, defense counsel requested the court find unusual circumstances and
grant probation, or, in the alternative, requested imposition of the middle term. Finding
this was not an unusual case within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision
(e), and separately “based on the nature, seriousness and circumstances of the case,” the
trial court denied probation. The court noted defendant had stipulated to the possible
existence of aggravating circumstances that could support imposition of an upper term
sentence. The court took judicial notice of certified records establishing defendant had
prior convictions and had served prior prison terms. Finding the circumstances in
aggravation, specifically defendant’s prior convictions and prior prison terms,
outweighed circumstances in mitigation, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term
of three years in prison. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4),
a matching suspended parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $40
court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction
assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court waived the criminal lab analysis fee (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11372.5) and the drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7). The
court credited defendant with 276 custody days including 138 actual days and 138 days
of conduct credit.
       Defendant filed a notice of appeal, indicating his appeal was based on the sentence
or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
                                        DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of
the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of the filing of the opening
brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from

                                               3
defendant. Having examined the entire record, we find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                     /s/
                                                 EARL, P. J.

We concur:

    /s/
ROBIE, J.

    /s/
MESIWALA, J.

                                             4