Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD213336, Albert T. Harutunian III and Daniel J. Danielson, Judges.
HALLER, J.
After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, Matthew Basco Broderick entered negotiated guilty pleas to possession for sale of cocaine in excess of 28.5 grams (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351 & Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(1)), possession for sale of ecstasy (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), possessions for sale of hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), and possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The plea bargain called for a sentence of five years with execution to be stayed for five years and a three-year grant of probation, conditioned on, among other things, Broderick serving 365 days in jail. Additionally, under the plea bargain, Broderick agreed to waive past and future Penal Code section 4019 credits. The trial court sentenced Broderick in accordance with the plea bargain.
The correct spelling of appellant's surname is Brodrick; we use Broderick since that is the spelling that appears in all the court documents in this proceeding.
FACTS
On April 30, 2008, San Diego Police Department narcotics detectives went to Broderick's condominium after receiving a tip of possible drug dealing. Before the detectives knocked on Broderick's door, they smelled the odor of fresh marijuana coming from open windows. Lead detective Schyler Boyce knocked on the door, and Broderick answered. Boyce identified himself and explained he and the other detectives were investigating a narcotics complaint.
Boyce told Broderick he could smell the odor of fresh marijuana; Broderick responded he was a medical marijuana patient and went to retrieve his medical marijuana card. Meanwhile, Boyce and other detectives looked into the condominium and observed a marijuana "grow light" in the living room. When Broderick returned, Boyce asked him if he had a "marijuana grow or not." Broderick said he had marijuana only for personal use and he would "show him [Boyce]." Boyce further testified that Broderick gave the detectives permission to enter his condominium and look to see if there was an indoor marijuana grow.
Broderick testified that in response to the detective Boyce's request, he agreed to show him how much marijuana he had. However, Broderick said he did not intend to consent to the detectives' entry into his condominium; rather, he intended to retrieve the baggie containing his personal-use marijuana and bring it to the detectives at the door. According to Broderick, none of the detectives asked his permission to enter the condominium and he did not give any of them permission to do so.
When Broderick went to retrieve his personal-use bag, Boyce and four other detectives followed him into the apartment. Broderick did not complain. Boyce followed Broderick into his bedroom and observed him opening a dresser drawer, which contained a large bag of marijuana and loose bills. The other detectives remained in the living room, where they examined a box containing a large amount of marijuana next to a grow light.
Boyce asked Broderick for consent to search the apartment; Broderick refused. Officers handcuffed Broderick, and detained him while the detectives left to obtain a search warrant. During execution of the warrant, officers discovered 3,230 grams of marijuana, $8,252 in cash, digital scales, 96 hydrocodone tablets, 24.38 grams of ecstasy and 414 grams of cocaine.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979), 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable issues: (1) whether it was reasonable for the detectives to assume they were given consent to enter the residence when Broderick said he would show them his personal-use marijuana; and (2) whether, assuming there was express or implied consent to enter, such consent was voluntarily and intelligently given.
We granted Broderick permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues raised by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Broderick has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., AARON, J.