Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF10003233. Timothy F. Freer, Judge.
Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster Acting P.J.
INTRODUCTION
On July 22, 2010, an information charged defendant and appellant Gerardo Almaguer (defendant) with (1) felony possession of a handgun by a felon under Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1); (2) felony possession of ammunition by a felon under Penal Code section 12316, subdivision (b)(1); (3) felony possession of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a); and (4) misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia used for smoking a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11364. The information also alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term and did not remain free for a period of five years under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Defendant pled not guilty to all counts. Defendant then filed a motion to discover the name of a confidential informant. The trial court denied defendant’s motion without prejudice. Defendant also filed a motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. The trial court denied defendant’s request for an in camera hearing.
Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and a motion to suppress statements that he had made to the police under Penal Code section 1538.5. After a hearing on November 23, 2010, the trial court denied both motions.
On November 29, 2010, jury selection began. Later that day, defendant entered into a plea agreement. Defendant pled guilty to all four counts and admitted the prior prison term allegation.
Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court imposed a three-year prison sentence as follows: (1) Two years for the possession of a firearm count, plus one year for the Penal Code section 667.5 enhancement to run consecutively; (2) two years for the possession of ammunition count, to be served concurrently; (3) two years for the possession of methamphetamine count, to be served concurrently; and (4) 180 days for the possession of drug paraphernalia count, to be served concurrently.
On December 23, 2010, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Detective Lackey received a “We-tip” report that an unknown man living in a trailer at a specific address was manufacturing or possessing methamphetamine. On June 23, 2010, at approximately 1:30 p.m., Detective Lackey, Detective Dorado, and three other detectives went to the location of the trailer. They did not have a search warrant.
The detectives arrived in an unmarked car and were not wearing uniforms. The detectives were wearing concealed weapons, but did not draw the weapons at any time. Detective Dorado had his identification and badge on the outside of his clothing.
When the detectives arrived, Detectives Lackey and Dorado saw a man with his head partially out of the trailer window looking at them. Detective Dorado spoke to the man, later identified as defendant, from the sidewalk. Detective Dorado identified himself as being an officer and stated that they were there to investigate. Detective Dorado asked defendant if they could speak to him and defendant responded, “yeah.”
At this time, all five detectives entered the property and walked toward the trailer. They did not see or smell anything that would indicate that there was a methamphetamine lab on the premises.
Detective Lackey also spoke with defendant briefly. Defendant then left the window and was no longer visible from the outside of the trailer. Detective Lackey knocked on the door of the trailer and identified himself. The detective could hear movement inside the trailer. The trailer did not have any other doors. After two or three minutes, defendant opened the door.
Defendant came out of the trailer without being asked to come out. As Detectives Lackey and Dorado were talking to defendant outside of the trailer, defendant spontaneously stated that the detectives could look inside his trailer. When asked, defendant repeated his statement that the detectives could look inside his trailer. Defendant was very cooperative. During this time, defendant was standing and walking around; he was not handcuffed.
Detective Dorado asked defendant if he had anything illegal. Defendant stated no. The detective then asked defendant if he could search his person. Defendant did not respond verbally; instead, he put his hands up. Detective Dorado found some keys in defendant’s front pocket but did not take them out at that time.
Later, Detective Dorado asked defendant for the keys to the trailer. Defendant took them out of his pocket and gave them to Detective Dorado. Detective Dorado and defendant were speaking in English; they had no difficulty communicating.
Some of the detectives entered the trailer to search the trailer. Detective Dorado remained outside with defendant. Detective Lackey asked defendant if he had anything illegal in the trailer. Defendant said no, but “[t]here might be a 20 I used sometimes.” The detective interpreted that statement to mean that defendant might have methamphetamine. When asked, defendant stated that there were no guns in the trailer.
One of the detectives found a loaded handgun in the trailer. Detective Lackey immediately placed defendant in handcuffs. At this point, the detective considered defendant to be under arrest. A detective also found 0.1 to 0.2 grams of a substance that was later determined to be methamphetamine. At some point, a glass pipe was found.
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 to undertake a review of the entire 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 (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: King J., Miller J.