Opinion
B298337
03-03-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCINE FUERTE, Defendant and Appellant.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Super. Ct. No. KA117994) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert M. Martinez, Judge. Affirmed. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Francine Fuerte appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after she pleaded no contest to possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on formal probation for five years. Fuerte filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of probable cause, based on the trial court's denial of her Pitchess motion. The court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause. We affirm.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
BACKGROUND
On the evening of April 28, 2018, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Juan Ruiz was on patrol on Galemont Avenue in Hacienda Heights. There had been several calls to the sheriff's department regarding trespassers in a vacant home on that street. Deputy Ruiz checked the home and discovered Fuerte and Jose Valenzuela Alvarez in one of the rooms. Fuerte and Alvarez were sitting by a footstool, on which there were numerous bindles of methamphetamine.
Deputy Ruiz searched the two. Alvarez had a cell phone and $17 in his possession. Fuerte had $984 in her possession. During this time, Alvarez's cell phone kept ringing and receiving phone calls and text messages from different numbers. Deputy Ruiz detained Fuerte and Alvarez. In a subsequent conversation, Fuerte and Alvarez told Deputy Ruiz that they were both unemployed. Based on the manner in which the methamphetamine was packaged, the large amount of money Fuerte had in her possession, the fact that Fuerte and Alvarez were unemployed, and the calls and text messages Alvarez received, Deputy Ruiz formed the opinion that Fuerte and Alvarez possessed the methamphetamine for sale.
The People charged Fuerte and Alvarez by information with possession for sale of a controlled substance. Fuerte pleaded not guilty.
Fuerte filed a Pitchess motion, seeking information as to complaints against Deputy Ruiz regarding dishonesty and filing false police reports. The bases of the motion were Fuerte's statements to her counsel that she was not sitting by the footstool when Deputy Ruiz entered the room but was standing on the opposite side of the room; she was unaware of the presence of methamphetamine in the room and told the deputy it was not hers; she never said she was unemployed but, when asked about the money in her possession, stated that she had won $2500 at a casino three days earlier and could provide proof of that.
The People opposed the motion on the grounds the supporting declaration failed to establish good cause for production of the requested documents, and the categories of documents requested were overbroad. The court denied the motion, explaining that the supporting documentation provided no evidence of fabrication, and the statements attributed to Fuerte and Alvarez were exculpatory.
Judge Steven D. Blades.
The People then moved for joinder of this case with a second case (L.A. Super. Ct. No. KA119956) involving possession of methamphetamine for sale. Fuerte opposed joinder on the ground the People were using the much-stronger evidence in the second case to bolster the weaker evidence in this case. The court denied the motion.
Thereafter, Fuerte entered into a plea agreement, whereby she pleaded no contest in both this case and the second case. The court placed her on five years' formal probation in each case.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Fuerte on this appeal. After review of the record, Fuerte's counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On December 12, 2019, we sent a letter to Fuerte, advising her that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. That letter was returned to us as undeliverable, with no forwarding address.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that no arguable legal issues exist and that Fuerte's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. By virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, we are satisfied that Fuerte received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against her in this case. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; accord, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
JOHNSON, Acting P. J. We concur:
BENDIX, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------