P. v. Lee

Filed 2/13/07  P. v. Lee CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

     Defendant entered a plea of no contest to possession of cocaine hydrochloride for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §  11351) and possession of marijuana for sale.  (Health & Saf. Code, §  11359.)  Defendant's plea came after his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5^[1] was denied in part and a subsequent motion to set aside the information pursuant to section 995, in which defendant reargued his motion to suppress, was denied.  Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years and eight months in state prison.  On appeal, defendant contends his motion to suppress should have been granted completely.  Respondent disagrees, but points out an error in sentencing.  We shall order the judgment modified and the abstract of judgment amended to correct the sentencing error.  We shall otherwise affirm the judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

     Defendant's motion to suppress was heard concurrently with his preliminary hearing.  The following is a summary of the testimony presented.

     On December 10, 2004, Sacramento Police Officers Yepes, Martinez, and Warren went to a Motel 6 and obtained the motel checklist to see if any motel guests were on probation or wanted on warrants.  Defendant's name came up with an arrest warrant for a violation of section 273.5, domestic violence.  The three officers proceeded to room 130 where defendant was staying. 

     Martinez knocked on the motel room door and stated they were â€