Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR140156
Siggins, J.
David Binstock appeals from a judgment and sentence following his plea of no contest to a single count of possessing a controlled substance for sale and his admission of an enhancement due to his prior service of a sentence in state prison. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We find no such issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Offense
In April 2008, Napa County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Albert Washington observed defendant driving his motorcycle on the wrong side of a double yellow line. Deputy Washington stopped defendant and smelled alcohol on his breath. Defendant said he had a vodka drink half an hour earlier and that he did not have a license because his wallet was stolen.
Washington contacted dispatch and was told defendant was on probation and subject to search. The deputy administered a field sobriety test and searched defendant’s person. The search revealed eight small baggies containing a white crystal substance. Defendant was arrested.
A few days later, after confirming that defendant was on probation subject to a search clause, Napa County Deputy Sheriff Rick Greenberg searched defendant’s home. He found ammunition and a cutting agent used in the sale of methamphetamine. Deputy Greenberg returned to defendant’s home the following day and found a digital scale, unused Ziploc baggies, and packaging material.
The Legal Proceedings
Defendant was charged with one felony count of possessing a controlled substance for sale, one felony count of transporting a controlled substance, one felony count of possessing ammunition, and a one-year prior prison term enhancement.
Defendant moved to suppress all evidence, which he claimed was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. At the suppression hearing the parties stipulated that defendant “was not on an active probation search term” when the searches were conducted. Lisa Claudino, the records supervisor at the Napa County Sheriff’s Department, testified that her office receives probation and probation termination orders from the superior court. The same day termination orders are received, the clerks mark the probationer’s file “terminated” and remove it from the computer system.
In December 2003, the sheriff’s records department received an order that indicated defendant was on probation with a search condition until November 2008. The records department did not receive a probation termination order for defendant until May 2008, the month following the searches defendant challenged in his motion to suppress.
Karen Koen, a clerk division supervisor with the Napa County Superior Court, testified that when the court terminates a defendant’s probation a copy of the order is sent to the sheriff’s department and the transmission and date are noted in the defendant’s court file. Defendant’s probation terminated on May 13, 2005, but there was no indication in his file that the order was sent to the sheriff’s department before May 2008.
The trial court found that the officers reasonably believed defendant was on probation when they searched defendant and his residence, and denied the suppression motion on the ground that the searches were conducted in good faith under California and federal law. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest to one felony count of possessing a controlled substance for sale and admitted the prior prison term enhancement. The court dismissed the remaining two counts.
The presentence report recommended that defendant receive a prison sentence. The court denied probation and imposed the maximum 28-month prison term contemplated in the plea agreement. The court awarded 222 days of credit for time served, suspended imposition of a $200 parole revocation fine, and imposed a $200 restitution fine, a $560 presentence report fee, a $170 criminal laboratory fee, a $510 drug program fee, and a $20 court security fee. Defendant filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s counsel has represented that he advised defendant of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of defendant’s right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. Defendant has not done so. Defendant has also been advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. On this record, the court was correct when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence retrieved in the searches of defendant and his residence. (People v. Washington (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 434, 439.) No issue requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Pollak, J.