P. v. Romero
Filed 4/17/09 P. v. Romero CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMA JEAN ROMERO, Defendant and Appellant. | E046241 (Super.Ct.No. FWV801415) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Joan Marie Borba, Judge. Affirmed.
Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Norma Jean Romero appeals from her conviction of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).)
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A search warrant was executed on defendants home in March 2008, and a deputy found a methamphetamine pipe with .33 grams of methamphetamine, a usable quantity, in defendants bedroom.[1] Defendant moved to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. The motion was heard and denied at the preliminary hearing. At her arraignment, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) She did not mention or renew her motion to suppress evidence.
A sealed clerks transcript containing the search warrant affidavit was filed with this court, and we have reviewed the transcript.
III. ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and one potential arguable issue, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. The potential arguable issue was whether defendant might appeal from the denial of her motion to suppress evidence at the preliminary hearing. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. An order denying a suppression motion made before or during a preliminary hearing is not appealable unless it has been renewed in the superior court following arraignment on the information. (People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896-897.) A preliminary hearing is conducted by a magistrate who does not sit as a superior court judge. (People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574, 584.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P.J.
MCKINSTER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The facts are taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
