Filed 10/27/17 P. v. Aliga CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARIVIC MARTIN ALIGA,
Defendant and Appellant.

A147191

(San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. SC082591A)


This is an appeal in which a brief was filed under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking us to review the entire record to determine if any arguably meritorious issues should be briefed. We have reviewed the record and conclude that no meritorious issues exist, and we therefore affirm the conviction.
Appellant Marivic Martin Aliga was convicted by jury verdict of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), possession of a billy (Pen. Code, § 22210), and misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1) following execution of a search warrant at her parents’ home, where she stayed in a bedroom in the garage. The sheriff’s deputies and police officers who executed the warrant discovered 6.78 grams of methamphetamine in two plastic baggies in Aliga’s bra. They also discovered approximately 28.6 grams of methamphetamine in three separate baggies in Aliga’s bedroom. The drugs in the bedroom were found in a metal box under the bed between two drawers, along with two digital scales, 148 empty ziplock baggies of different sizes, a broken meth pipe, and miscellaneous other items. Also found in Aliga’s bedroom were two notebooks, one of which contained what a testifying agent believed were pay-owe records documenting drug sales. The officers found eleven $100 bills in a wallet in the closet and six $50 bills in the dresser of that bedroom. The officers also searched a black Audi convertible in the driveway of the home that was registered to Aliga and discovered an expandable baton near the gearbox and a methamphetamine pipe in the pocket on the back of the passenger’s seat.
Aliga denied selling drugs. She testified the metal box found under her bed was not hers, and she could not explain its presence under her bed, but she insinuated it could have been placed there by her boyfriend, who was frequently in trouble with drugs, and who had access to her room. The drugs in her bra, she said, had been given to her by a friend of her boyfriend’s earlier on the day of her arrest, and she was planning to give them to her boyfriend. She suggested the baton was either left in her car by her boyfriend or planted there by the police. She said her mother had given her the $1,100 to buy a car at auction that she could later sell at a profit. She denied the pay-owe records in the notebooks were related to drug transactions. She claimed she was keeping track of bank statements, how much money she owed other people, and sales of purses, which she sold to earn some money while she did not have steady employment.
After Aliga testified, her attorney requested a jury instruction on momentary possession, which was denied. Aliga also moved to exclude a notebook seized from her room that dated back to 2013, and moved to exclude the methamphetamine recovered from her bra due to chain of custody issues. Those motions, too, were denied. After the jury returned its verdicts, the court sentenced Aliga to three years, eight months in prison, and suspended 20 months of the sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h).
The following pretrial motions were made by Aliga: a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, which was denied; a motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, which was also denied; a motion to exclude reference to Aliga’s prior misdemeanor convictions for aggravated assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and making terrorist threats (Pen. Code, §422), which was denied (and the prior convictions were ruled admissible for impeachment); and a motion to suppress two statements Aliga made during the execution of the search warrant without receiving Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), which were ruled admissible. In addition, during trial, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, also denied, on grounds that the vehicle registration introduced at trial showed Aliga’s address at her parents’ home, where the search was conducted, whereas the registration produced in discovery showed a different address.
We have reviewed the record, including the motions listed and the court’s rulings, and we find no issues that would merit further briefing. We are convinced Aliga received a fair trial, she was competently represented by counsel at trial and on appeal, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.










_________________________
Streeter, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.


_________________________
Rivera, J.