Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BA356256, Ronald H. Rose, Judge.
Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
Jose Trinidad Aispuro entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession for sale of heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana; cultivating marijuana; and possession of over $100,000 obtained through trafficking narcotics. In conformity with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in prison.
The charges stemmed from a May 6, 2009 search pursuant to a warrant of defendant’s house, garage, and vehicles. The officers found $135,000 in a hidden compartment inside the engine block of one vehicle, over 400 pounds of marijuana, 182 grams of heroin, 266.42 grams of methamphetamine, four growing marijuana plants, scales, packaging, pay-owe sheets, three assault rifles, high capacity magazines, a handgun, and a large amount of ammunition.
Defendant did not seek or obtain a certificate of probable cause, but filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On May 6, 2011, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) In addition, defendant’s no contest plea and failure to apply for and obtain a certificate of probable cause limit the potential scope of defendant’s appeal to “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity” or “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Although defendant had filed a motion to suppress evidence, he withdrew the motion and pleaded no contest before the court ruled upon the motion. Under the circumstances, the denial of defendant’s motions to disclose the identity of a confidential informant and to unseal an attachment to the warrant application are not appealable.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: CHANEY, J., JOHNSON, J.