From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chae

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Jan 31, 2012
2d Crim. No. B229376 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B229376 Super. Ct. No. BA314455

01-31-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVE K. CHAE, Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County)

Steve K. Chae appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a) - count 2) and receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a) - count 4). The trial court sentenced him to three years, eight months in state prison, consisting of three years on count 2, and a consecutive eight months on count 4.

The Los Angeles Police Department received information that narcotics activity was occurring at appellant's apartment. On December 20, 2006, two officers visited his apartment building. The manager provided appellant's apartment number and identified the two parking spaces he occupied. In one of the parking spaces, the officers discovered a car that had been reported stolen.

The officers called for backup and two more officers arrived. They knocked on appellant's door, which he opened, revealing a gun in plain sight on a sofa behind him. Next to the gun were narcotics. The officers seized the gun for purposes of officer safety. After obtaining a search warrant, they searched the premises and recovered additional contraband.

Appellant filed a suppression motion, requesting the court to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment and car, as well as statements he made after being taken into custody. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial court denied the motion. Appellant challenges its ruling.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

On September 26, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished to raise on appeal. We have received no response from him.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

COFFEE, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

PERREN, J.

JUDITH L. CHAMPAGNE, Judge


Superior Court County of Los Angeles

Susan Wolk, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Summaries of

People v. Chae

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Jan 31, 2012
2d Crim. No. B229376 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Chae

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVE K. CHAE, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

Citations

2d Crim. No. B229376 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)