P. v. Cooper
Filed 6/26/06 P. v. Cooper CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LORENZO D. COOPER, Defendant and Appellant. | B184289 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA068242) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Wade D. Olson, Commissioner. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Not appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information charging defendant and appellant Lorenzo D. Cooper (defendant) with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358). Defendant pleaded not guilty.
Defendant filed motions for an in camera hearing to traverse a search warrant to determine whether the sealed affidavit in support of the search warrant contained false or misleading statements or omissions and whether it established probable cause and for disclosure of the identity and whereabouts of an informer. The trial court granted the motion for an in camera hearing. The trial court found sufficient probable cause supported the search warrant and denied defendant's motions to traverse the search warrant and to disclose information concerning the informant. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the information pursuant to section 995 (alternatively brought as a demurrer). The trial court denied the motion, and we denied defendant's ensuing petition for writ of mandate (case number B181742).
Thereafter, with defendant's consent, and apparently pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court granted the People's motion to amend the information by interlineation to add a charge of possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)). Defendant then pleaded nolo contendere to possession of concentrated cannabis. The trial court placed defendant on probation for five years under various terms and conditions, including the conditions that he serve 90 days in county jail and 180 days in the Caltrans work system; that he pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a suspended $200 probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44), a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), and a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); and that he provide DNA samples pursuant to Penal Code section 296. The remaining charges were dismissed.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Defendant's notice of appeal states that defendant appeals from â€
