People v. Perea CA4/2 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/4/14 P. v. Perea CA4/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       E060222
    v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. FWV1200397)
    CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PEREA,                                                OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stephan G.
    Saleson, Judge. Affirmed.
    William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Defendant Christopher Perea is on probation for three years after pleading guilty
    to possessing concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)) for having
    1
    a marijuana “grow house” in his home.1 Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial
    of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. We affirm the
    judgment.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURE
    On February 17, 2012, police officers acted on a tip that the resident of
    defendant’s house was growing marijuana and that a child was staying at the house. The
    officers knocked on the front doors and windows of the house but there was no response.
    The officers saw an open gate in the chain link fence separating the back yard from the
    front yard, and went to see if they could contact someone in the back yard. Upon taking
    5 to 10 steps into the back yard, the officers noticed a strong odor of marijuana coming
    from inside the house. They saw an open window in the back of the house covered by a
    thick white material and containing a vent leading into the house. They heard the sound
    of large fans inside the house. The officers believed the house could be a “grow house”
    and that people could be inside, who might begin to hide and destroy evidence once they
    saw the officers. For this reason, and because they believed a child might be in danger
    inside the house, they entered the house without a warrant. No one was inside. After
    securing the house, the officers obtained a search warrant.
    After obtaining the search warrant, the officers found 968 marijuana plants, scales
    with marijuana residue, pay and owe sheets, heat lamps, and large quantities of marijuana
    1 All section references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise
    indicated.
    2
    in various states of preparation. They also found information indicating defendant lived
    in the home.
    On February 27, 2013, the People filed an information charging defendant with
    selling or transporting marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)) and possessing marijuana for sale
    (§ 11359).
    On July 2, 2013, the court heard and denied defendant’s motion to suppress
    evidence.
    On October 22, 2013, defendant entered into a plea bargain. He pled no contest to
    a new charge, possessing concentrated cannabis, in exchange for the more serious
    charges being dropped. On November 20, 2013, as agreed, he was placed on felony
    probation for three years, with time served of 168 days. His conviction was to be reduced
    to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), if he would commit no
    further criminal violations for 22 months.
    This appeal followed.
    DISCUSSION
    We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the
    record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    and Anders v. California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
    , setting forth a statement of the case, a
    summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an
    independent review of the record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
    supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly
    3
    (2006) 
    40 Cal. 4th 106
    , we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and
    find no arguable issues.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    RAMIREZ
    P. J.
    We concur:
    HOLLENHORST
    J.
    RICHLI
    J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E060222

Filed Date: 6/4/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014