P. v. Camargo

Filed 8/8/06 P. v. Camargo CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael S. Hider, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Merced Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to Art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Cynthia M. Sorman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Daniel Rogers and Kristen Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, defendant Benjamin Camargo, Jr., pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. He was sentenced to a year in jail and placed on probation for 36 months. He appeals, contending the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code,^[1] § 1538.5.) We find the trial court reached the correct result, albeit for the wrong reason, and we therefore affirm the judgment.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because the search of defendant's home was without a warrant, the People had the burden to justify the warrantless entry and search. The only witnesses at the suppression hearing were Deputy Marc Cloutier of the Riverside Sheriff's Office and defendant.

Deputy Cloutier testified that he and Deputy Williams went to defendant's trailer in Anza on December 5, 2003, because they had â€