P. v. Villa
Filed 12/31/12 P.
v. Villa CA1/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
DAVID VILLA,
Defendant and
Appellant.
A135984
(San Mateo County Super. Ct.
No. SC075211A)
After a plea bargain with the
assistance of counsel, defendant David Villa pleaded no contest to a violation
of Health and Safety Code section 11350, unlawful possession of a controlled
substance, cocaine, and admitted a prior juvenile strike adjudication (Penal
Code § 1170, subd. (c)(1)). Two
other counts and special allegations, one of which would have precluded
probation, were dismissed as part of the bargain. A Romero motion
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
was granted, imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on
three years’ probation with credit for county jail time. Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
Defendant’s counsel filed an
asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436. Defendant was notified of
his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. After independent review of the record, we
conclude there are no arguable issues
to brief and affirm the judgment.
Background
Responding to a complaint about
noise at the Half Moon Bay Sports Bar at 1:30 a.m., Deputy Sheriff John Lothian
saw a large number of people walking toward their cars and recognized defendant
with his shaved head and “650†tattooed on the back of his head. Lothian knew defendant from prior contacts
and believed he was on parole. As he
tried to stop defendant, defendant and two companions ran off around a
corner. Lothian radioed Villa’s description
and direction of travel and confirmed defendant was on parole.
Deputy Sheriff Michael Marty
received the broadcast; he also knew Villa and that he was on parole. Fifteen minutes later, he found defendant
slumped down in the back seat of a parked car.
Defendant left from the back door and looked like he was attempting to
flee. Defendant was detained, searched
and arrested for possession of .29 grams of cocaine.
Discussion
By pleading no contest defendant admitted the sufficiency of the
evidence establishing the crime and is not entitled to review of any issue that
concerns the question of guilt. (
42.) Penal Code section 1237.5 bars the
appeal, except for defendant’s motion to suppress, unless defendant received a
certificate of probable cause, which he did not.
Defendant filed a 1538.5
warrantless detention resulted in the discovery of a small amount of
cocaine. The court carefully considered
the testimony of parole agent Rachel Darrow to establish defendant’s parole
status at the time of the arrest; the testimony of Deputy Sheriff John Lothian
regarding his encounter with defendant; and the testimony of Deputy Sheriff
Michael Marty regarding his detention and arrest of defendant. Deputy Marty knew defendant was on parole and
subject to search of his person. After
argument by counsel, the court properly denied the motion, noting defendant’s
parole status and the circumstances warranting the detention and search.
There were no errors in the
proceedings or in the sentence imposed.
The court exercised its discretion in a proper manner.
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Margulies, J.
______________________
Banke, J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1]
(People v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 494.)
