P. v. Ross
Filed 6/24/08 P. v. Ross CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM DON ROSS, Defendant and Appellant. | H032333 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. BB623975) |
Defendant William Don Ross was charged with pimping of a prostitute under the age of 16. (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (b)(2).) Defendant brought a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. After the prosecutor amended the information, defendant pleaded no contest to attempted pimping of a prostitute under the age of 16. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, defendant was placed on probation on condition that he serve one year in county jail. Defendant has filed a timely appeal.
On November 21, 2007, the Mountain View police were investigating prostitution. Detective Soqui spoke with Jane Doe at a motel. She told him that she had been a prostitute for approximately a year and a half. She no longer had a pimp, but her last pimp was a Black/Filipino male who was about 25 to 30 years old. She also stated that someone drove her to the motel. While they were talking, Officer Tim Dahl used Jane Does cell phone to send a text message directing the recipient of the message to meet at the back of the motel.
Shortly thereafter, Officer Mike Magana observed a white BMW driving slowly past the street that led to the rear parking lot of the motel. The driver, who matched the description that Jane Doe had given of her last pimp, looked intently at the area where Jane Doe was being detained. Magana also observed an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror of the BMW in violation of Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a)(2). Magana then conducted a traffic stop. As defendant, the driver of the BMW, rolled down the window, Magana noticed the smell of burnt marijuana. Magana asked defendant if he had smoked weed, and defendant replied that he had been smoking with his boys. Magana then asked if he could search defendants vehicle. Defendant gave his consent. Magana found two cell phones and $1,020 in cash. Defendant was later searched at the police station. The police found a fake drivers license with Jane Does photo and a different name.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________
Mihara, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.
_____________________________
McAdams, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
