Filed 4/12/18 P. v. Najar-Elias CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PRUDENCIO GERARDO NAJAR-ELIAS,
Defendant and Appellant.

A152279

(Lake County
Super. Ct. No. CR940115)


Following the denial of his motion to quash and traverse a search warrant, defendant Prudencio Gerardo Najar-Elias pled no contest to several drug and weapons related charges and was sentenced to nine years in state prison. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea” and on the denial of a Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence. His attorney has submitted a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and has advised defendant of his right to submit a supplemental brief, which he has not done. Based on our independent review of the record on appeal, we have concluded that there is no arguable issue warranting further briefing.
Background
On August 25, 2015, a detective with the Lake County Sheriff’s Department obtained and executed a search warrant for a commercial structure on Highway 29 in Kelseyville. The affidavit submitted by the detective in support of the warrant stated, among other things, that on July 27, 2015, while flying over a large, mostly undeveloped parcel, he discovered “a large scale outdoor marijuana cultivation operation being concealed within the native vegetation.” He later located and eradicated 3,309 growing marijuana plants at the site. He also located “a kitchen area or day camp, but no tents or bedding” which led him to believe the cultivators were not living at the grow site. On August 5, he observed “a Hispanic male adult wearing a camouflage boonie style hat exit the brush behind a residential structure in the same general area of the . . . marijuana grow site.” On August 19, while hiking down a small access road between the structure and the grow site, he observed “a well-worn trail system, containing clearly defined boot prints” leading from the grow site toward the residential structure. On that day and a second day about a week later, the detective observed the same white Toyota Tacoma truck parked outside the structure. Based on the above, and the detective’s training and experience, he opined that there was “probable cause to believe there is an ongoing criminal conspiracy to possess, cultivate and sell marijuana” on the property and that persons involved in such a conspiracy commonly keep evidence of their crimes “in their residence, outbuildings, tents, green houses or storage facilities.”
Defendant was arrested when he attempted to flee from the structure at the time of the search.
Defendant was charged by amended information with felony possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378; misdemeanor cultivation of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358; misdemeanor possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359; felon in possession of multiple firearms in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a); two counts of possession of an assault rifle in violation of Penal Code section 30605, subdivision (a); misdemeanor resisting or obstructing peace officers in violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1); and misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a). The amended information alleged as to as to the first count that defendant was personally armed with multiple firearms within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) and that the substance containing methamphetamine exceeded over one kilo within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (b)(1). Pursuant to a negotiated plea with a stipulated nine-year prison sentence, defendant pled no contest to the above counts and allegations.
Defendant was sentenced to nine years for possession for sale of methamphetamine and the related allegations. The court imposed concurrent, two-year terms for each of the firearm related offenses and concurrent sentences of 180 days in county jail for each of the four misdemeanor offenses.
Discussion
At the hearing on defendant’s motion to quash and traverse the search warrant, defense counsel examined the detective that submitted the affidavit and presented expert testimony on local marijuana cultivation practices. The court found that the detective had made no material misrepresentations or falsities and that there was probable cause to believe based on the facts in the affidavit that there would be evidence of cultivation in the structure. We agree with the trial court and conclude there was no error in the denial of defendant’s motion.
Although defendant filed two additional motions to suppress relating to the search of his cell phone that was seized at the time of his arrest, his plea was entered before the court took any action on these motions. Accordingly, they are beyond the scope of the appeal.
Defendant was sentenced in conformity with his plea.
Defendant was adequately represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
 




_________________________
Pollak, J.


We concur:


_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.*


_________________________
Jenkins, J.













A152279