P. v.
Filed 8/21/12 P. v. Austin CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TAMMY RUDY AUSTIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
B239351
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. LA068936)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L.
Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
The Prosecution’s Case
On the
afternoon of September 16, 2011,
LAPD Officers Svoboda and Lantz were patrolling the area near the residence of
appellant Tammy Rudy Austin. The area
had a high rate of car burglaries and
narcotics activity. The officers
contacted Ernesto Cabral, a known probationer.
Cabral indicated that he lived with Austin, who was his girlfriend, at 6012
Carpenter Ave.
The officers knocked on the front
door of Austin’s residence, and she
opened the door. They asked if they
could come inside to discuss recent burglaries in the area. Austin
said, “yes,†and stepped aside in a way that appeared to the officers to be an
invitation to enter. They walked into
the living room with Cabral. In plain
view, Officer Svoboda saw a cylindrical glass pipe commonly used to smoke
methamphetamine in the bedroom a few feet away.
Officer Svoboda also saw a plastic baggie containing what was later
determined to be 2.15 grams of methamphetamine on the bed.
The Officer arrested appellant and
asked permission to search the house, to which Austin
consented. The officer found additional methamphetamine in a dresser drawer,
and narcotics in Austin’s
purse. Austin
admitted that the drugs found in the residence were hers. Officer Svoboda asked Austin
if Cabral lived in the residence. She
said he sometimes slept on the living room couch, and confirmed that they had a
relationship.
The Defense Case
Only Officer Svoboda knocked on the
door; she was already handcuffed by the time Officer Lantz and Cabral came
in. When she opened the door, officer
Svoboda just walked in. She never gave
him permission to enter. The officer
went immediately into the bedroom, saw an empty baggie on the bed and arrested
her. Austin
told the officer that Cabral did not live there. She never gave the police permission to
search her home.
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
By
information, Austin was charged
with possession of a controlled substance.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) Austin’s
counsel filed a motion to suppress (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), arguing she did not
consent to the warrantless search, and a motion to dismiss (Pen. Code, §
995). Both motions were denied. The motions were renewed—and denied again—at
a pretrial conference.
Austin
waived her constitutional rights and
pleaded no contest to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. The court suspended imposition of sentence,
placed Austin on summary probation
for one year and imposed various fees and fines. Appellant filed a timely
denial of her motions to dismiss and her motion to suppress.
We appointed
on appeal. After examination of the
record, Austin’s counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues, and asking this court to independently review
the record. On May 29, 2012, we advised Austin
she had 30 days within which to personally submit any
consider. To date, we have received no
response.
We have
examined the entire record and are satisfied that Austin’s
counsel fully complied with his responsibilities, and that no
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED.
JOHNSON,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P.
J.
CHANEY, J.
