Opinion
F061042
09-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS MIGUEL RAIGOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. F09900668)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mark W. Snauffer, Judge.
Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 11, 2009, appellant, Luis Miguel Raigoza, was charged in an information with possession of a controlled substance for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, count one). On April 14, 2010, the jury convicted Raigoza of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). On July 23, 2010, the court denied probation and sentenced Raigoza to prison for the midterm of two years. The court granted Raigoza five days of custody and conduct credits and imposed various fines and fees.
On July 28, 2009, Raigoza complained about his counsel not knowing anything about his case just prior to the preliminary hearing. Counsel explained that she had conducted discovery, read the police report, communicated a plea bargain offer from the prosecutor, and advised Raigoza of the maximum exposure he faced. Counsel represented that she was prepared to proceed with the preliminary hearing. The court denied Raigoza's motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
While the jury was deliberating, Raigoza brought a motion pursuant to Marsden. Raigoza complained about the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury. Raigoza complained that the prosecutor introduced evidence of his bad character when Raigoza had not first produced evidence of his good character. The court explained to Raigoza this had not happened and that both sides are permitted a great deal of leeway in how they argue the case. The court noted the prosecutor had only argued points that went to Raigoza's credibility. The court found Raigoza's trial attorney did a good job defending Raigoza at trial and that Raigoza was not challenging his counsel's representation pursuant to Marsden.
--------
FACTS
On January 29, 2009, Officer Ryan Deuel and other officers of the Reedley Police Department executed a search warrant at Raigoza's apartment. After the officers knocked on the door and provided notice, Raigoza opened the door. An officer pulled Raigoza out from the apartment and handcuffed him. After determining that no one else was inside the apartment, Raigoza was brought back inside and left there with two officers while a search warrant was executed at a second location.
Officers found a casino ticket in Raigoza's name but no contraband at the second location. They returned to Raigoza's apartment. The officers searched a blue Chevrolet Tahoe. Raigoza said he was the primary driver of the Tahoe and his driver's license was found in a console between the front seats.
In their search of the Tahoe, officers also found a digital scale, narcotics underneath the rear seat, and a BB gun. The narcotic found was methamphetamine in two bags weighing slightly less than one ounce. Raigoza admitted he possessed the methamphetamine for sale. Raigoza had $1,006 in his clothing. Most of the currency was in $100 bills.
Raigoza testified that he won the money at Table Mountain Casino. Raigoza said he was unaware of the drugs until he was told about them by the police. Raigoza explained that his son had been acting up and he thought the drugs belonged to his son. Raigoza told the police the drugs belonged to him to protect his son.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on April 1, 2011, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.