P. v. Furulie
Filed 8/16/07 P. v. Furulie CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES MYKE FURULIE, Defendant and Appellant. | H031287 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. FF617678) |
Defendant Charles Myke Furulie pleaded no contest to one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359) and admitted having suffered one prior conviction resulting in a prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
I. Background[1]
On or about September 30, 2006, at approximately 8:45 a.m., Santa Clara County Deputy Sheriff Vince Larson observed an unoccupied pickup truck parked along the side of the road by the Uvas reservoir. The trucks registration had expired in 2001. As the deputy approached the truck to investigate, defendant and another man, W.C. Simmons, came up from the reservoir carrying sleeping bags, blankets, and beer. Simmons said that the backpack and suitcase inside the truck belonged to defendant. Defendant denied ownership of the truck or any of its contents other than a sleeping bag and a blanket.
Larson decided to impound the truck based upon its long-expired registration (see, Veh. Code, 22651, subd. (o)(1)) and commenced an inventory search of the truck. He found a black suitcase and a backpack. Both the suitcase and the backpack contained items identifying them as belonging to defendant. The suitcase also contained a small scale and numerous plastic baggies. The backpack contained about eight grams of marijuana separated into six plastic baggies.
Defendant was arrested and charged with one count of possessing marijuana for sale. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the truck. (Pen. Code, 1538.5.) The court denied the motion finding that since defendant disavowed ownership of anything in the truck, he had no standing to bring the motion (see People v. Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 48) and, further, that the inventory search was appropriate and not a subterfuge for a criminal investigation.
II. Discussion
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause, which is required by Penal Code section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. Accordingly, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. ( 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required when the notice of appeal states that it is based upon the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 or grounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the pleas validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)Defendants notice of appeal states that the appeal is based upon the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Accordingly, rather than dismiss, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Elia, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] Because this matter was resolved by plea, we take our recitation of the facts from the transcripts of the preliminary examination and the hearing on defendants motion to suppress evidence.
