P. v. Barron
Filed 8/18/06 P. v. Barron CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SERGIO BARRON, Defendant and Appellant. | B186811 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.BA265754) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith M. Champagne, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sergio Barron appeals from a judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession for sale of cocaine base, count 1 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), and possession of a deadly weapon, count 2 (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to the upper term of five years on count 1 and a concurrent term of three years on count 2. Execution of his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on formal felony probation for three years upon certain terms and conditions, including that he serve one year in jail or in any penal institution; such time was to run concurrent to any time imposed on a parole violation. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence made pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, claiming the parole search of his residence was unreasonable, as it was done arbitrarily and without reasonable suspicion. In his reply brief, he acknowledges that on June 19, 2006, the United States Supreme Court filed its opinion in Samson v. California (June 19, 2006, No. 04-9728) ___ U.S. ___ [126 S.Ct. 2193], holding that a suspicionless search of a parolee does not violate the Fourth Amendment but argues that the search was unreasonable as it was done arbitrarily and capriciously. For reasons explained in the opinion, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY[1]
Lisa Bryant was appellant's parole agent and was acquainted with appellant's conditions of parole. One of the conditions was that he and his â€
