P. v. Pena

Filed 10/19/06 P. v. Pena CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on her plea. Her counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After review of the record, we find no error and affirm.

Defendant brought a motion to suppress pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, which was denied. She then entered a plea of no contest to a charge of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a))^[1], and was placed on three years probation and ordered to serve 75 days in county jail, which could be served in a treatment program. This timely appeal followed.

Defendant was advised of her constitutional rights prior to the entry of her plea, as well as the consequences of her plea. The court found the plea was free and voluntary, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. No error appears in the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress^[2] or in the sentencing proceedings. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Ruvolo, P. J.

_________________________

Rivera, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

^[1] Two counts of possession of heroin and cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351)

were dismissed as part of a negotiated disposition. The charges were based upon the police discovering contraband in defendant’s residence, which she shared with Ken Frye. The contraband was discovered during the service of an arrest warrant for another individual named Timothy Fox, who was also living in the residence. Although the officers did not knock on the door before entering, they did announce their presence.

^[2] The trial court found that the police substantially complied with the knock and notice requirements before entering defendant’s residence, which was the issue raised by the suppression motion. Given our high court’s recent ruling in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) __ U.S. __, [126 S.Ct. 2159], that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to violations of the knock and notice rule, the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion appears correct on two grounds.