P. v. Gomez
On October 12, 2004, appellant, Trinidad Gomez, was charged in a felony complaint with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378, count one), possession of a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.1, subd. (a), count two), opening a place for the purpose of selling methamphetamine and marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11366, count three), possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359, count four), possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, 12280, subd. (b), count five), being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a), count six), and possession of a short barreled shotgun or rifle (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a), count seven).Count one also included special allegations that appellant was personally armed with a firearm in the commission of that offense ( 12022, subd. (c)) and that he had a prior narcotics conviction (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (c)). The complaint alleged that appellant had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law ( 1170.12) and a prior prison term enhancement ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
Appellant filed a suppression motion ( 1538.5) which was heard and denied by Judge Ferguson during the preliminary hearing on October 17, 2005. The court held appellant to answer on the allegations in the complaint. An information was filed on October 28, 2005. An amended information was filed on November 29, 2005.[2] On December 6, 2005, the parties entered into a plea agreement before Judge Ferguson. Appellant pled no contest to counts one, two, four, and five. Appellant admitted the special allegations in count one, the two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law, and the prior prison term enhancement. The remaining allegations were dismissed. The court indicated appellants prison sentence would be nine years.
On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. Respondent contends this issue is waived because appellant failed to renew his suppression motion in superior court pursuant to People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 895-896 (Lilienthal), and therefore failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Court concur with respondent and dismiss the appeal.
Comments on P. v. Gomez