Court Opinion

ID: 9920882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 00:02:33.185659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:45:50.021866
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Devore 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C099001

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 23FE004046)

           v.

 LAKIVA DEVORE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Lakiva Devore filed an opening brief that sets
forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After
reviewing the record, we shall affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       The complaint, deemed an information, charged defendant with transportation of
methamphetamine and possession of it for purposes of sale. (Health & Saf. Code,
§§ 11379, subd. (a), 11378.)1 The information further alleged the weight of the
methamphetamine exceeded 22 kilograms. (§ 11370.4, subd. (b)(4).)
       Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to transportation of
methamphetamine and a (lesser) weight enhancement of more than one kilogram.
(§§ 11379, subd. (a), 11370.4, subd. (a)(1).)
       Defendant and her codefendant were seen at a gas station exchanging money, after
which 50 pounds of methamphetamine was placed into the codefendant’s car. Defendant
“tracked” her codefendant’s car on the freeway where they were stopped by law
enforcement in Sacramento County. A search of the codefendant’s car uncovered 50
pounds of methamphetamine. During the plea colloquy, defendant’s counsel represented
to the court that he had received 1,100 plus pages of discovery and he believed the
discovery supported this factual basis.
       In exchange for defendant’s plea and in accordance with the plea agreement, the
trial court dismissed the remaining count and sentenced her to five years confinement,
consisting of one year in custody in the county jail and four years of mandatory
supervised release. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(B)(5).) The judge imposed but stayed
numerous fees and fines based on defendant’s indigency.
       Defendant appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause. In her statement
supporting the issuance of the certificate, she asserted this case was a conspiracy against
her, and despite her attorney’s representation to the trial court, there were 1,100 pages of
discovery that had not been provided at the time she was sentenced.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

                                                2
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of her right to file a supplemental
brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have
elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                        /s/
                                                  Duarte, J.

We concur:

     /s/
Robie, Acting P. J.

     /s/
Krause, J.

                                              3