People v. Cabezas CA2/2 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 2/28/24 P. v. Cabezas CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,                                                B331803
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. YA106280)
    v.
    ANTHONY CABEZAS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT:
    Defendant and appellant Anthony Cabezas appeals his
    judgment of conviction of felon in possession of a firearm. His
    appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
    
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende), raising no issues. On December 21, 2023,
    we sent defendant a letter notifying him of his counsel’s brief and
    gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter
    stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have
    considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted
    no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record and,
    finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
    Defendant was charged with felon in possession of a
    firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision
    (a)(1) (count 1) and with felon in possession of a concealed firearm
    in a vehicle in violation of section 25400, subdivision (a)(1) (count
    2). At the time of the preliminary hearing he brought a motion to
    suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5. Defense counsel
    argued law enforcement officers exceeded the scope of the search
    warrant executed at an illegally operated marijuana dispensary.
    In addition to the interior of the dispensary and other areas, the
    warrant commanded the search of “[a]ny and all vehicle(s) at the
    location that can be determined to be directly involved in the
    sale, purchase, or possession for sale of cannabis.” A Los Angeles
    County Sheriff’s Department detective testified to being present
    with others during the execution of the warrant. Defendant was
    exiting the lobby of the dispensary when they entered. One of the
    other detectives found a key fob on a small shelf in the lobby.
    The fob located an SUV in the parking lot of the dispensary. The
    SUV was searched and an unregistered, loaded .45-caliber
    semiautomatic firearm was found behind a door panel.
    Defendant’s driver’s license was also found in the vehicle. After
    receiving and waiving Miranda advisements,1 defendant
    admitted the SUV belonged to his mother and that he was at the
    location to buy marijuana at the (apparently) legally registered
    dispensary next door.
    Defense counsel argued the officers’ observations were
    insufficient to support a finding that defendant was directly
    involved in the sale or purchase of marijuana at the dispensary.
    After hearing the argument of both counsel, the trial court denied
    1     See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 
    384 U.S. 436
    , 444-445.
    2
    the motion to suppress evidence. After the trial court denied the
    motion, defendant entered a plea agreement on May 3, 2023.
    Pursuant to the agreement defendant pled no contest to count 1
    and admitted prior felony convictions, count 2 was dismissed, and
    the trial court placed him on formal probation for two years, with
    several stated conditions. Defendant filed a timely notice of
    appeal challenging his plea based upon the denial of his motion to
    suppress. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
    We have examined the entire record and are satisfied
    defendant’s appellate counsel has complied with his
    responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude
    defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende
    procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and
    effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in
    this case. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 278; People
    v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 123-124.)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ____________________________________________________________
    LUI, P. J.        ASHMANN-GERST, J.             CHAVEZ, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B331803

Filed Date: 2/28/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/28/2024