P. v. Tucker
Filed 4/7/06 P. v. Tucker 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL PIERRE TUCKER, Defendant and Appellant. | H029594 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC581343) |
Following denial of his motion to suppress incriminating evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant Daniel Pierre Tucker pleaded guilty to violating one count of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), possession of methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as Ecstasy, and one count of Health and Safety Code section 11550, subdivision (a), using or being under the influence of methamphetamine. Entry of judgment was deferred pursuant to Penal Code section 1000 et seq. and defendant entered a drug diversion program. Thereafter, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
In People v. Mazurette (2001) 24 Cal.4th 789, the California Supreme Court held that orders granting deferred entry of judgment are not appealable orders because there is yet no judgment which can be appealed. (Id. at pp. 795, 796.) This rule does not leave a defendant without recourse to review of the order denying the motion to suppress. As the court said, review of the order is available under two circumstances. First, defendant can bring the motion to suppress â€
