Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA374467, Drew E. Edwards, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Frank Flores was charged by information with seven counts: count one, forgery in violation of Penal Code section 476; counts two and six, forgery in violation of Penal Code section 475, subdivision (c); counts three, four, and five, forgery in violation of Penal Code section 475, subdivision (b); and count seven, possession of a smoking device in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364, subdivision (a). After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, appellant pled no contest to counts one through four and was sentenced to a term of four years in state prison. Appellant appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
On August 4, 2010, at about 6:00 p.m., Detectives Arturo Koenig and Carlos Bedolla of the Los Angeles Police Department went to a converted garage on North Coronado Terrace in Los Angeles County, where appellant lived. Appellant’s parents lived in the home, and appellant lived in the converted garage in the backyard.
The facts are taken from the transcripts of the preliminary hearing and the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence.
Before going to the location, Detective Koenig had been told by Detective Bedolla that appellant was on probation for burglary. Detective Koenig believed that Detective Bedolla had confirmed that appellant was on probation and was subject to search and seizure terms as a condition of probation.
The detectives arrived at the address and walked through a gate into the backyard in order to get to the garage. The gate was closed but not locked. The detectives did not check to see if appellant’s parents were home or try to ask them for permission to enter the backyard.
The door to the garage was open when the detectives arrived. Standing at the doorway, they saw appellant seated on a mattress on the floor and a pipe for smoking methamphetamine on a table next to him. Detective Koenig searched appellant and found a wallet and an envelope in his rear pocket. He found four $20 bills in the wallet, but Detective Bedolla noticed that three of the bills had the same serial number, indicating that they were counterfeit.
The envelope contained checks, but the checks did not belong to appellant. Four checks, numbered 2531, 2532, 2554, and 2555, were from the account of Kimberly Brown. Two of the checks were filled out to appellant, and two were not filled out. There were two more checks, from the account of Taryn Hilken. Detective Judah Ramirez spoke with Kimberly Brown, who told him that her checkbook had been stolen from her car and that a check had been cashed without her permission. Detective Ramirez also spoke with Taryn Hilken, who said that her checks were taken from her mailbox and that she did not know appellant.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, asking that the pipe, the counterfeit bills, the checks, and his statements to the officers be suppressed. Appellant contended that the search and seizure were unconstitutional because they were conducted without a warrant. The court held a hearing to consider both the motion to suppress and the alleged probation violation in Case No. BA304759.
At the hearing, defense counsel argued that the officers needed to know someone had formal search and seizure terms as a condition of probation before conducting a search, and that the officers trespassed onto the property. The court denied the motion. The court relied on Detective Koenig’s testimony that his partner knew appellant had admitted being on probation, as well as on exhibits showing that the officers had a clear view of the table from the doorway.
The court found appellant in violation of his probation in Case No. BA304759, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to the high term of three years.
Appellant subsequently decided to accept an offer of four years, to run concurrent with the three-year sentence on the probation violation. The prosecutor explained appellant’s rights to him, and appellant acknowledged that he understood his rights and waived them. Appellant pled no contest to counts one through four of the information, forgery in violation of Penal Code sections 475, subdivisions (b) and (c), and 476. Defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the pleas based on the police reports and preliminary hearing transcripts. The trial court determined that the pleas were knowing and intelligent and accepted the pleas.
The court sentenced appellant to two years on count one and one-third the midterm, or eight months, on each of counts two, three, and four, for a total of four years. The remaining three counts were dismissed. The court imposed the requisite fines, fees, and conditions, and gave appellant credit for 90 days of actual custody and 90 days of good time/work time credit for a total of 180 days. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to review the record independently pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On January 7, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
A certificate of probable cause is required for an appeal challenging the validity of a plea. (People v. Brown (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 356, 359.) However, no certificate is needed where, as here, appellant challenges the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. (Id. at p. 360.)
“When considering a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion, ‘we view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, deferring to those express or implied findings of fact supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 528-529.) “We exercise our independent judgment to determine whether, on the facts found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [Citations.]” (People v. Strider (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1398.)
A search pursuant to a probation search condition is valid if the officer knew of the condition when he did the search. (People v. Hoeninghaus (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1197; People v. Bowers (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1270.) The trial court found that the detectives knew of the probation condition when they conducted the search, relying on Detective Koenig’s testimony that Detective Bedolla knew appellant had admitted being on probation and confirmed that he was on probation. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., SUZUKAWA, J.