P. v. Cowan

Filed 8/28/07 P. v. Cowan CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:^*

Tamisha E. Cowan (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in her conviction of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) and attempted possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) and Penal Code section 664. The trial court placed appellant on terms and conditions of Proposition 36 probation for three years.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal.

After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief containing an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues.

On April 26, 2007, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

The record shows that on December 8, 2005, Officer Jaime Mejia of the Los Angeles Police Department arrested a suspect for sale of methamphetamine. During the arrest, Officer Mejia answered the suspects constantly-ringing cell phone. One of the calls was from a woman who said her name was Tomasa and who asked for an ounce of glass. She then spoke in Spanish and asked for crystal, indicating the street vernacular name for methamphetamine. Officer Mejia said he could help her and the two arranged to meet at a gas station. Officer Mejia arranged a reverse-sting operation whereby he packaged a baggie with Epsom salts to sell. Appellant was at the gas station next to the vehicle she had described, and she identified herself as Tomasa. She asked to go to a side street with the officer, but he refused. He followed her instructions to put the narcotics under the drivers seat of her truck. Appellant then gave the officer $620. Officer Mejia gave a signal, and appellant was arrested.

Officer Ammon Williams arrested appellant and searched appellants truck. Inside a purse he found two small baggies containing a crystalline substance consistent with methamphetamine and a small pill container that also contained such a substance. A criminalist analyzed the substances and found that they consisted of methamphetamine in the quantities of 0.09 grams and 0.03 grams.

After the officers testified, appellant made a Faretta^[1]motion that was denied as untimely. She then made a Marsden^[2]motion that was denied.

Appellant testified that she called the cell phone number of a Jose, whose last name she did not know, to order windows for her mobile home and car. She was half fluent in Spanish. When someone else answered the phone she thought this person was going through with the order and was going to bring her the windows. She believed they were discussing ventanas, or windows. When the officer approached her he asked her for money and asked Where do you want me to put them? He then went and put something under her seat, and she did not notice what it was until she got in the truck. An individual then approached her and told her she was under arrest. She had not asked for methamphetamine and was not in the market to buy crystal methamphetamine. She had asked Officer Mejia, whom she thought was Joses employee, to go to a side street because she wanted a receipt and she felt rushed. She did not know the nature of the substances found inside her car. Several people had been helping her pack her car for a move. There were several purses in her car and she had known other people to go into her purses from time to time and take things.

We have examined the entire record, including the record of the Marsden hearing, and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.

^* BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., CHAVEZ, J.

^[1]Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta).

^[2]People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).