People v. Baker

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM JAMES BAKER, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Dec 4, 2014

2d Crim. No. B256179 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2014)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B256179

12-04-2014

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM JAMES BAKER, Defendant and Appellant.

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GILBERT, P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. F486554)
(San Luis Obispo County)

William James Baker was charged with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and drug paraphernalia (id., § 11364.1).

Federal agents discovered the contraband while searching Baker's residence pursuant to a warrant issued by a United States magistrate. Baker moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that a warrant issued by a United States magistrate is not valid where the charges are brought under state law. The trial court denied the motion. Baker pled no contest to the drug possession charge and was placed on Proposition 36 probation.

We appointed counsel to represent Baker on appeal. After counsel's examination of the record he filed a brief raising no issues. On August 24, 2014, counsel declared that he wrote Baker to inform him he was filing the brief and that he had the right to file his own brief. We have received no brief from Baker.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied Baker's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J. We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

Jacquelyn H. Duffy, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.