P. v. Molina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/24/13  P. v. Molina
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   ARAGON MOLINA,               Defendant and Appellant.

B245804         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. LA069445)

 

 

THE COURT:href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

Defendant and appellant Aragon
Molina (defendant) appeals his judgment of conviction of misdemeanor href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">possession of marijuana.  His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant
to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 (Wende), raising no issues.  On April
8, 2013, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him
leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or
argument he might wish to have considered. 
That time has elapsed and defendant has submitted no letter or brief.  We have reviewed the entire record and
finding no error or other arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.

            After
Los Angeles Police Department officers conducted a search of the garage of
defendant’s home and found jars of marijuana and marijuana plants defendant was
charged with cultivating marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code
section 11358 (count 1) and possession of marijuana for sale in violation of
Health and Safety Code section 11359 (count 2).

Defendant brought a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">motion to suppress evidence under Penal
Code section 1538.5.  The evidence at the
hearing showed that Detective Michael Snowden and other law enforcement
officers accompanied a parole agent to the home of parolee Todd Everett (Everett)
to conduct a “parole compliance check.”  Everett’s
wife, son, brother-in-law (Arnold Molina (Molina)), and other relatives lived
in the home.  Defendant, Molina’s son,
lived in the attached garage.  According
to Molina, Everett had moved out
approximately two months before the search. 
The officers conducted a sweep of the house in search of Everett,
but did not find him.  Though Molina gave
the officers a key to the garage, defendant came out just as they were about to
open the door.  While searching the
garage for Everett, the officers
saw the jars containing a substance resembling marijuana.  Defendant then agreed to a full search of the
garage where the officers found 24 jars of marijuana, 27 growing plants, and
other evidence.

            After
the trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence, defendant agreed to
plead no contest to misdemeanor possession of marijuana.  On December
6, 2012, the information was amended by interlineation to add count
3, charging a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision
(c).  Upon taking defendant’s plea, the
trial court dismissed counts 1 and 2. 
The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on
summary probation for two years under specified terms and conditions, and
ordered defendant to pay mandatory fines and fees.  Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal
from the judgment.

            We
have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate
counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue
exists.  We conclude that defendant has,
by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende
procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective
appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case.  (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

            The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.