P. v. Turner
Filed 8/23/12 P. v. Turner CA2/4
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FOUR
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
FRANCINE
M. TURNER,
Defendant and Appellant.
B235565
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA371078)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Craig Richman, Judge.
Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Defendant Francine M.
Turner appeals from the judgment entered after her no contest plea to one count
of transporting, selling, or offering to
sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a))
and one count of possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §
11359). She was placed on probation for
three years with conditions.
The
lead appellant, Kelton Bernard Lasley, abandoned his appeal, which was
dismissed on March
29, 2012. Codefendant
Stacy Tyrone Lee is not a party to this appeal.
Turner’s
notice of appeal states that she challenges the denial of her motion to
suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(b)(4)(A).) Her appointed counsel
filed a Wende brief. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
On January
17, 2012, we directed appointed counsel to send the
record and a copy of counsel’s brief to Turner and notified Turner of her right
to respond within 30 days. We have
received no response.
The
evidence elicited at the hearings on the motion to suppress was that, on May 6, 2010, Los
Angeles police conducted a narcotics
operation, during which an undercover officer approached Lee on the street,
paid him $20, and waited for him to return with cocaine. According to the officers’ version of events,
Lee was then observed talking to Turner and exchanging something with Lasley on
the front steps of an apartment building.
After the controlled buy from Lee was complete, officers were directed
to the apartment Turner and Lasley were seen entering.
The
officers knocked on the apartment door, and when Turner answered, she and
Lasley were asked to step out of the apartment.
A protective sweep was conducted.
An officer led Turner to a courtyard and told her the apartment was
under investigation. She was not handcuffed.
A detective suggested that Turner sign a consent to search form. The officer retrieved the form from his car,
read it to Turner, and directed her to read it herself. The form stated that Turner could refuse
consent. She signed the form. The search of the apartment revealed drugs,
drug paraphernalia, cash, and a handgun.
Turner was arrested and handcuffed.
Her two children, who had come on the scene while the search was underway,
were taken to her parents’ home at her request.
Turner
and Lasley presented a different version of events. Turner denied sitting with Lee and Lasley on
the front steps before police arrived at her door. She and Lasley testified she was handcuffed
either immediately upon answering the door or after she was taken outside the
apartment. But Turner acknowledged she
was initially told she was not in trouble and was not going to jail. She claimed her children came back,
accompanied by a family friend, and the officer asked her whether anyone could
take care of them because otherwise they would go to “Children’s Services.â€
told him the family friend who accompanied the children could take care of
them. The officer handed her a paper,
which she understood she needed to sign for her children to be released to the
family friend. She signed the paper
without reading it. She was not asked
whether the officers could search her apartment.
Turner’s
counsel argued that her detention was illegal and her written consent
involuntary. The trial court noted the
conflicting testimony and stated that it did not believe the officers
“automatically†handcuffed Turner. The
court ruled that, based on her interaction with Lee during the controlled buy,
Turner was lawfully detained, and that her written consent to search was
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
We have
reviewed the whole record under People v.
Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. No arguable
issues for appeal exist.
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We
concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
take this to be a reference to the Los Angeles County Department of Children
and Family Services.
