P. v. Lucas

Filed 10/28/08 P. v. Lucas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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:*

Julio C. Lucas (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to carrying a concealed firearm on his person (Pen. Code, 12025, subd. (a)(2)),[1]and he admitted the gang allegation ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) after the trial court denied his motion to suppress illegally-seized evidence ( 1538.5). At sentencing, the trial court granted appellant probation on condition, inter alia, that he serve 365 days in the county jail, with presentence credit of 252 days.

We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

After examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues are raised.

On August 15, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished this court to consider.

No response has been received to date.

The trial court indicated that the factual basis of the plea was the evidence adduced at the search and seizure motion. That evidence indicated that at 11:30 a.m., on November 2, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Caesar Gonzalez spoke to a victim, F.B., at the Olympus Market near the intersection of Lankershim Boulevard and Sherman Way in North Hollywood. F.B. claimed that an 18th Street gang member, Lasaro, had assaulted him with a knife with others at the Home Depot. Also, there was another fight that day at the Olympus Market liquor store. Officer Gonzalez looked at the liquor stores videotape, and on the videotape, he observed F.B. and three other youths fighting at the liquor store. A man who arrived at the liquor store was detained, and F.B. identified him as an assailant. F.B.s companion denied that that detained man was the person who had assaulted F.B. The officers took the suspect, F.B., and F.B.s companion to the police station.

At the police station, Officer Gonzalez further interviewed F.B. F.B. told the officer that the assault involving Lasaro had occurred a month earlier at the Home Depot. The officers knew that a well-known 18th Street gang member named Lasaro frequently hung out in the rear of a 100-unit apartment complex located at 7240 Lankershim Boulevard with other gang members. The apartment complex was around the corner from the Home Depot and the Olympus Market.

At 3:30 p.m. the same day, four plainclothes Los Angeles police officers entered the apartment complex to arrest Lasaro. In the rear courtyard of the complex, the officers found and detained five youths who appeared to be 18th Street gang members. Appellant was one of these youths. As the officers entered the courtyard, one officer ordered the group to stop, but appellant began running down a hallway. Another police officer physically detained and ordered appellant to put down two bags he was holding in his hands. Appellant complied.

When appellant set down the bags, one bag made a clank, which the officer believed was a sound similar to that a handgun would make as it hit cement. The officer looked down into the open bag and saw the butt of a gun sticking up.

Appellant was taken into custody, as was a youth with an outstanding warrant. The gun was seized from the bag. The officers determined that Lasaro was not among that group of gang members.

The December 6, 2007, probation report indicates that the officer seized an unloaded nine-millimeter handgun from the bag appellant was carrying, and there was a nine-millimeter magazine in the other bag. Appellant admitted that the nine-millimeter handgun was his and that he was an 18th Street gang member who had been detained in a location that was an 18th Street hangout.

As an adult, appellant had been previously arrested on November 7, 2006, for the unlawful driving and taking of a vehicle. He was convicted of disturbing the peace.

We have examined the entire record 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 San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

* DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.