legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Olson

P. v. Olson
02:20:2007

P


P. v. Olson


Filed 1/16/07  P. v. Olson CA1/2


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION TWO







THE PEOPLE,


            Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


WAYNE ALLEN OLSON,


            Defendant and Appellant.


      A108700


      (Contra Costa County


      Super. Ct. No. 050309211)



I. INTRODUCTION


            After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of five counts charged in an indictment.  All of those counts related to the manufacture of methamphetamine and issues relating thereto.  The jury also found true several charged enhancements, including one alleging that appellant was personally armed with a firearm.  (Pen. Code, §  12022, subd. (c).)  The trial judge subsequently sentenced appellant to a nine-year prison term.  He appeals, claiming: (1) Miranda[1] error; (2) improper denial of his motion to suppress evidence; (3)  improper denial of his motion to compel disclosure of the name of a confidential informant; and (4) instructional error regarding the arming enhancement.  We reject all of these claims and affirm the judgment.


II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


            At a little before 8 a.m. on the morning of November 14, 2002, Deputy Chris Simmons of the Contra Costa Sheriff's office, working along with approximately 10 other officers from that department, executed a search warrant at appellant's El Sobrante residence.  When no one answered their knock on the door, the officers forcefully entered and found appellant and another man, one Mark Matteri, sleeping on a bed in the main bedroom.  A strong chemical odor was emanating from the room.  The officers detained and then searched both men; they found two plastic baggies of methamphetamine on appellant.  Within the main bedroom, i.e., the room in which appellant had been sleeping, the officers also found five (5) guns.  Four of the five guns were unregistered and unloaded.  The fifth, which was loaded, was registered to a Gerald Matteri.  At the foot of the bed in which appellant and Mark Matteri had been sleeping, they found a bag containing hundreds of rounds of ammunition. 


            Also found in the bedroom were: two identifications of appellant; another baggie of methamphetamine; 11 baggies, plus jars and dishes containing residue of methamphetamine; 30 glass smoking pipes; a scale; pills containing pseudoephedrine as well as empty packets and bottles which had contained such pills; an aspirator; tubing; flasks; a hot plate; iodine; phosphorous; a coffee pot with white residue; a chemical chart; an acetone container; and hydrogen peroxide. 


            A strong chemical odor was also emanating from the garage of the house; when the officers looked there, they found more jars and bottles.  These contained several layers of liquids and crystal residue, muriatic acid, a heating mantle, and many other items which, according to later testimony, were intrinsic to the manufacture of methamphetamine. 


            At the house, Deputy Simmons advised appellant of his Miranda rights; appellant stated that he understood them.  When Simmons asked appellant if he was prepared to talk to the officers, the latter responded: â€





Description After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of five counts charged in an indictment. All of those counts related to the manufacture of methamphetamine and issues relating thereto. The jury also found true several charged enhancements, including one alleging that appellant was personally armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, S 12022, subd. (c).) The trial judge subsequently sentenced appellant to a nine year prison term. Defendant appeals, claiming: (1) Miranda error; (2) improper denial of his motion to suppress evidence; (3) improper denial of his motion to compel disclosure of the name of a confidential informant; and (4) instructional error regarding the arming enhancement. Court reject all of these claims and affirm the judgment.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale