Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC786172
Premo, J.
Defendant Samuel Harry Blount was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) (count 1)), a felony, one count of being under the influence of methamphetamine (id., § 11550, subd. (a) (count 2)), a misdemeanor, and possession of marijuana (id., § 11357, subd. (b) (count 3)), a misdemeanor. The information alleged that defendant had suffered one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and had served two prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and moved to suppress the evidence against him. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, defendant changed his plea to no contest and admitted the prior conviction allegations in exchange for the promise of no more than 32 months in prison. The trial court granted defendant’s Romero motion, striking the strike prior, and sentenced defendant to two years in prison on count 1 and a concurrent 90 days for count 2, with credit for 90 days already served. The court suspended the sentence for count 3 and struck further punishment for the prison priors.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
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 his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
I. Background
Officer Steve Wahl had observed a silver Dodge Magnum parked in the driveway of a residence that he knew was occupied by someone with a history of making methamphetamine. Upon checking the license number of the car, Wahl learned that defendant was its registered owner. Further investigation revealed that defendant was on parole. On the morning of November 7, 2007, Wahl was watching the residence and saw someone get into the Dodge and pull out of the driveway. Wahl noticed that the driver’s side window was tinted to such an extent he could not see inside the car. Believing the tint to be a violation of the law, Wahl stopped the car and made contact with defendant, the driver and lone occupant. Defendant identified himself as the registered owner and admitted he was on parole. Wahl then asked defendant to step out of the car. Wahl’s subsequent search revealed a baggie of methamphetamine on defendant’s person and marijuana and more methamphetamine in the car.
In March 2008, around four months after defendant’s arrest, a defense investigator photographed the silver Dodge Magnum. His photographs showed that the driver’s side window was transparent, with no tinting.
II. Discussion
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause, and, therefore, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required when the notice of appeal states, as this one does, that it is based upon the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code 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).) Accordingly, rather than dismiss, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having done so, we note that the trial court denied the motion to suppress based upon its finding of Officer Wahl’s testimony to be credible.
We conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.