P. v. Johnson-Marin

Filed 8/22/06 P. v. Johnson-Marin CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Isiain Johnson-Marin appeals from a judgment entered on his guilty plea following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

On July 19, 2005, the People filed a complaint charging defendant with attempted murder (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, 664) with discharge of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)) with personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); carrying a concealed weapon (§ 12025, subd. (a)(1)); and carrying a loaded firearm (§ 12031, subd. (a)(1)). The charges stemmed from a drive-by shooting on July 15, 2005. Based on radio communications describing the suspect vehicle involved in the shooting, police attempted to pull over the car driven by defendant but were unable to do so before the car crashed into other cars. Defendant fled but was arrested shortly thereafter. A police search of his car yielded a handgun and a spent casing.

Defendant moved to suppress all evidence seized from his car pursuant to section 1538.5 on the ground that the police did not have sufficient probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of his car. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress on November 16, 2005.

During in limine motions, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress a photo lineup identification because the lineup was unduly suggestive. On December 12, 2005, the People amended the information to add another count, charging defendant with assault with a firearm. (§ 245, subd. (a)(2).) Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the section 245, subdivision (a)(2) felony charge. The plea was entered with the understanding that the court would suspend imposition of sentence and place defendant on probation for three years. The court granted the People's motion to dismiss all other charges pending against defendant.

On January 20, 2006, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three year's probation on terms and conditions which included one year in the county jail with custody credits of 161 days and payment of restitution to the victim.[2]

Defendant was represented by counsel. There are no meritorious issues to be argued. There was no error in the sentencing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.

___________________________

REARDON, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] The court reserved certain issues regarding victim restitution at the time of sentencing, and continued the hearing on these issues beyond the date of the filing of the notice of appeal.