P. v. Pena

Filed 8/19/09 P. v. Pena 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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:*

Alejandro Pena, also known as Enriquez Pedraza and Enrique Pena Pedroza, appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The plea followed denial of appellants motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, before the preliminary hearing. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three-years formal probation, on conditions, among others, that he spend 365 days in county jail, and complete a 52-week residential drug treatment program, for which he was to be released from jail when a bed was available in the program.

At the suppression hearing, the following facts were adduced: On April 3, 2008, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Brandon Walthers was working undercover. He saw appellant talking to another person in front of a known narcotics location. The other person handed an object to appellant who placed the object in his mouth and walked away. Officer Walthers notified backup officers. Officers know that drug buyers often put drugs in their mouths so they can swallow them if stopped by police.

Officer Laurence Meyerowitz and his partner received information that appellant had possibly participated in a narcotics transaction. They detained him, and recovered what was determined to be .10 grams of cocaine base in his mouth.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court denied appellants motion to suppress. Thereafter appellant made a Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss on the same grounds as the suppression motion. The motion was also denied.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On April 27, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received.

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 REPORT.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

* ^{BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.}