THE PEOPLE v. RONALD LEE JONES (2011)

OPINION

Appellant, Ronald Lee Jones, appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest to possession of heroin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted three prior prison term enhancements (Pen.Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

On September 2, 2010, the court sentenced Jones to an aggregate term of six years.   Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 23, 2009, at approximately 5:21 a.m. Ceres Police Officer Michael Perez was dispatched to the Microtel Inn and Suites on a report of a suspicious person yelling and screaming in the parking lot.   When he arrived at the motel, Perez encountered Jones pushing a bicycle and an attached trailer back and forth in the parking lot.   Eventually, Officer Perez found a plastic bindle containing .24 grams of black tar heroin on Jones and some syringes in the trailer.   During a postarrest interview, Jones admitted the heroin was his, that he had been using heroin for 20 years, and that he ingested it intravenously.   He also stated that he had bought the heroin from an unnamed individual approximately five minutes before Perez contacted him.

On March 23, 2010, the district attorney filed an information charging Jones with possession of heroin (count 1) and possession of a syringe (count 2/Bus. & Prof.Code, § 4140).   The information also alleged five prior prison term enhancements and that Jones had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen.Code, § 667, subds.(b)-(i)).

On September 2, 2010, Jones entered his plea to the possession of heroin charge and admitted three prior prison term enhancements in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining count and enhancements and the three strikes allegation.   The court then sentenced Jones to the aggravated term of three years on his possession conviction and three one-year prior prison term enhancements.

Jones's appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record.  (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)   Jones has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.

Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

THE COURT * FN*.  Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.