Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F13101
OPINION
Premo, J.
Defendant Barbara Leigh Werner pleaded no contest to one count of possessing stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496.) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
Further code references are to the Penal Code.
I. Background
Chief Deputy Terry B. Parker of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office was acquainted with defendant and knew that there was a warrant for her arrest. In the course of monitoring telephone calls placed by inmates at the county jail, Parker learned that defendant was living at 144 Getchell Street in Santa Cruz. Several weeks later, Parker was driving down Getchell Street when he saw a woman he recognized as defendant walk out of the house at 144 Getchell Street. Parker obtained a search warrant for 144 Getchell Street for the purpose of finding and seizing defendant. In the course of executing that warrant officers found stolen credits cards.
Defendant filed a motion to traverse the warrant and suppress evidence. (Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154; § 1538.5.) The motion was based upon defendant’s allegation that Parker made untrue statements in his affidavit in support of the warrant. The trial court denied the motion concluding that even if Parker’s description of the monitored telephone calls was inaccurate as defendant argued, Parker recognized defendant when he saw her walk out of the house on Getchell Street, which was a sufficient basis for the warrant.
II. Discussion
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause, which is required by section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. Accordingly, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (§ 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required when the notice of appeal states that it is based upon the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 or grounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Defendant’s notice of appeal states that the appeal is based upon the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Accordingly, rather than dismiss, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.