legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Norville

P. v. Norville
06:23:2006

P. v. Norville





Filed 6/21/06 P. v. Norville CA4/3





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.









IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE














THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


MICHAEL THOMAS NORVILLE,


Defendant and Appellant.



G034541


(Super. Ct. No. 03WF0096)


O P I N I O N



In re MICHAEL THOMAS NORVILLE


on Habeas Corpus.



G035576



Consolidated appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James A. Stotler, Judge, and petition for writ of habeas corpus. Judgment affirmed. Petition denied.


Fay Arfa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant and for Petitioner.


Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J.T. Carlton and Sharon L. Rhodes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


After two trial courts denied Michael Thomas Norville's motion to quash and traverse the search warrant for his home, he pled guilty to possession of marijuana for sale and possession of a controlled substance for sale, oxandrolone oxymetholone methenolone. The trial court sentenced him to three years formal probation. On appeal, Norville challenges the court's ruling on his motion to traverse the search warrant pursuant to Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 (Franks). Alternatively, by petition for writ of habeas corpus, he contends the trial court denied his due process rights and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We ordered the petition consolidated with the appeal. We affirm the judgment and deny the petition.


FACTS


Officer R. J. Garwood of the City of Westminster Police Department executed a search warrant affidavit.[1] In his affidavit, Garwood, a narcotics investigator, recounted his five and one-half years of training and experience as a police officer, including participating in over 380 hours of classroom instruction, arresting or assisting in the arrest of over 200 people for possession or use of narcotics, and interviewing over 300 people who manufacture, sell, or use controlled substances.


Garwood explained he had obtained a warrant to search Richard Martino for marijuana and indicia of sales. Officers arranged for a reliable confidential informant (CI) to purchase a pound of marijuana from Martino for $3,500. Officers followed Martino from his home to another residence where he switched trucks and drove to a hotel to meet the CI. A man, later identified as Norville, arrived at the hotel in a white Ford Bronco.


Officer Thomas Blackburn saw Norville and Martino meet between two vehicles. Blackburn saw them â€





Description A decision regarding possession of marijuana for sale and possession of a controlled substance for sale; oxandrolone oxymetholone methenolone.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale