P. v. Nugent

Filed 2/21/06  P. v. Nugent CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            Defendant Lisa A. Nugent appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale.[1]  (Health & Saf. Code, §  11378.)  She claims that her rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated by the prosecution's delay in bringing her to trial.  She also challenges the imposition of certain fines and fees.  We find merit in her challenge to the probation revocation fee, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

            On September 17 or 18, 1999, several San Jose police officers, including Sergeant Glenn Harper, knocked on the door of room 438 of the Homewood Suites Hotel.  A man named Nunez opened the door.  Sergeant Harper believed the man was under the influence of a stimulant, and he was arrested.  The officers entered the suite, which had two rooms.  A door from the living room led into the bedroom and bathroom.  Another man, identified as Elie Santo or Ellezondo, was near the door to the bedroom and appeared to be whispering to someone inside.  Ellezondo also appeared to be under the influence and was arrested.  Sergeant Harper noted that two or three young children were also present.

            Sergeant Harper ordered anyone in the bedroom to come out, and defendant came out into the living room.  She also appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant.  When the officer asked defendant for identification, she said he could get it from her purse in the bedroom.  He located a large woman's purse on a counter in the bedroom.  The purse was closed.  When Sergeant Harper opened it, he found a black wallet containing two bags of white powder, over $400 in cash, a plastic straw, and a phone receipt with defendant's phone number on it.  Also inside the purse were credit cards and a telephone bill, all with defendant's name.  The two bags of white powder were later weighed and analyzed.  One bag contained 25.68 grams of methamphetamine and the other contained 3.78 grams of methamphetamine.

            The police concluded that the drugs belonged to defendant because they were in her purse with her identification.  They arrested her.  No other controlled substances were found in the room or on defendant.  The officers found nothing else of a criminal nature in the suite.

            Defendant testified at trial, claiming that the methamphetamine was not hers.  She explained that she had been laid off from her job, sold her house, and was living with her four dogs at the Homewood Suites until her apartment was ready to move into.  She testified that she was an acquaintance of Mr. Nunez, whose nephew had rented a guest house on her property.  On the day of the incident, she had taken Mr. Nunez's 15-year-old son to buy some shoes.  When they returned to her hotel suite that night, Nunez and two other men and a two-year-old girl she did not know were already in her suite.  She did not know how they got in.  Defendant further testified that when she arrived, she put her brown Louis Vuitton purse on a stool by the breakfast bar, took out her matching brown Louis Vuitton wallet and went to the lobby to rent a movie for Nunez's son to watch.  When she returned, she cooked food for the little girl who was hungry, and then gave the girl a bath.  Defendant said she was wearing a body suit and was in the bathtub with the little girl when the police arrived.  She said she had moved her purse to the floor in the bedroom.  Defendant denied any knowledge of the black â€