P. v. Ngaue

Filed 6/19/06 P. v. Ngaue CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Counsel has briefed no issues and asks for record review of the proceedings that led to defendant's conviction. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record and affirm.

Police went to defendant's home to look for a missing/runaway juvenile and to conduct a parole search involving defendant's brother, who also lived there. Defendant was in a back bedroom that smelled strongly of marijuana. Police testified he consented to a search of the bedroom that revealed a number of baggies containing suspected marijuana, along with $25 in cash.[1] A police expert concluded the baggies of marijuana were possessed for sale.[2] In the bedroom police also found an apparently operable unloaded shotgun; ammunition of various sizes; numerous small, empty baggies; and a scale with residue of a green leafy material.

Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale. The information also alleged he was armed with a firearm in the commission of that offense. Defendant's motion to suppress was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest to possession of marijuana for sale, and admitted the firearm allegation. Defendant waived the probation report and was placed on three years' probation, on condition, inter alia, that he serve nine months in county jail and pay a $200 restitution fine and a $75 supervised probation fee. The sentence comported with the negotiated disposition.

Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. He was fully advised of his rights, and of the consequences of his plea and admission. There was no error in the sentence imposed. Full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Parrilli, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Attorneys.

[1] The trial court found credible the police testimony regarding defendant's consent to the search.

[2] During the suppression hearing, defendant testified that he packaged the marijuana in baggies and planned to sell some of it.