P. v. Jimenez
Filed 10/27/06 P. v. Jimenez CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PALOMA JIMENEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | D048216 (Super. Ct. No. SCD195390) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kerry Wells and David J. Danielsen, Judges. Affirmed.
After the court denied motions to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) and to disclose the identity of a confidential informant (Evid. Code, § 1041), Paloma Jimenez entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years' probation including a condition she serve 180 days in custody.
FACTS
San Diego Narcotics Detective Ramon Valentin received information that a "Hispanic male in his 40's, [with] short dark hair and mustache, driving a silver Ford Thunderbird" would be in the area of Murphy's Liquor Store near Dwight Street and Fairmount Avenue at approximately 7:30 p.m. on December 5, 2005. The male would possess methamphetamine. At 7:30 p.m., the narcotics team engaged in surveillance of the area. After about 15 minutes, Valentin saw a Hispanic male in his 40's with short dark hair but without a mustache, later identified as Juan Ibarra, arrive in a silver Ford Thunderbird. He parked the Thunderbird and walked toward the liquor store. With a uniformed officer, Detective Valentin contacted Ibarra in "the middle of the street." Valentin identified himself and said he believed Ibarra had methamphetamine in his vehicle. Ibarra initially denied having the drug but, then told Valentin he had an ounce and one-half of methamphetamine in the car. Valentin testified that Ibarra had not been touched and was free to leave. Ibarra told Valentin where exactly in the car the methamphetamine was located and gave consent to remove it. Valentin did so. When Valentin moved toward the car, Jimenez was sitting in the passenger's seat. After Valentin obtained the methamphetamine, Ibarra and Jimenez were arrested. Jimenez told Valentin she saw Ibarra place the drug in the car and they had come to the location to sell it to a particular person. Jimenez consented to search of her apartment. In the apartment, Valentin found additional methamphetamine, packaging material, a scale and evidence of dominion and control.
When defense counsel questioned Valentin about the confidential informant, the People exercised the confidential informant privilege.
While denying the motions to suppress evidence and disclose the identity of the confidential informant, the court found Jimenez lacked standing to challenge the detention of Ibarra and the record lacked evidence whether she was detained during the 30 seconds while Valentin spoke with Ibarra. It found that, in any case, nothing was seized as a result of the 30 second detention or contact. It found that once Ibarra admitted there was methamphetamine in the car, the detective had probable cause to search the car and detain Jimenez as an occupant of the car. The court denied the motion to disclose the identity of the informant because Jimenez had not carried her burden of showing a reasonable possibility the informant had information material to Jimenez's guilt.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence.
We granted Jimenez permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Jimenez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
