P. v. Chavez

Filed 8/28/06 P. v. Chavez CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sam Ohta, Judge. Affirmed.

Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jorge Oscar Chavez.

Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Maria Elena Medina.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef and Tita Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________

Jorge Oscar Chavez and Maria Elena Medina were charged with one count of possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine or an analog, and one count of manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11383, subd. (c)(1), 11379.6, subd. (a)), with allegations that Chavez had suffered a prior drug conviction and served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.073, subd. (b)(8), 667.5). Chavez and Medina entered not guilty pleas, then moved to suppress evidence seized from the home they shared and from Chavez's car.[1] The trial court denied the motion. Chavez then pled no contest and admitted the prior allegations, and he was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of four years. Medina pled no contest to an amended information alleging that she had unlawfully maintained a place for selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366), and probation was granted.

Chavez appeals, challenging the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress. Medina also filed a notice of appeal, but then filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436). We affirm both judgments.

DISCUSSION

I.

Chavez contends the motion to suppress should have been granted. We disagree.

A.

The parties stipulated that the search of the house was warrantless, that both Medina and Chavez lived there at the time of the search, and that both had standing to challenge the search. The prosecutor then presented evidence of the following facts.

Law enforcement officers learned from â€