Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. VA099270, Roger Ito, Judge.
Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, Jorge Gaxiola, Jr. pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 32 months in state prison.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, parole agent Michael Williams testified about the parole compliance check he conducted of parolee Gaxiola. On January 26, 2007, Williams told Gaxiola’s parole officer Julissa Lucero of his intention to conduct a parole compliance check in the city of Bell. She gave him Gaxiola’s name and address on Florence Avenue as someone to check. Not knowing Gaxiola, Williams obtained his photograph (face sheet) from the Department of Corrections.
Early that evening, Williams and Bell Police Department officers went to the Florence Avenue address and were told by Gaxiola’s mother that he no longer lived there. They then went to a Chanslor Avenue address where Gaxiola was known to stay, and they were told that Gaxiola was no longer welcome there. As Williams and the officers were leaving the Chanslor Avenue address, they encountered Gaxiola on the street. He rode up on a bicycle, spoke to the officers, and submitted to a search. A cigarette box containing methamphetamine was recovered from his pocket.
Detective Terry Dixon testified that he and uniformed police officers accompanied Williams during the parole compliance check. Dixon knew Gaxiola from prior contacts and had information from a patrol officer that Gaxiola had recently been involved in unspecified illegal activities. It was Dixon who searched Gaxiola and found the methamphetamine.
Alicia Gaxiola, Gaxiola’s stepmother, testified in his defense that Gaxiola lived with her at the Florence Avenue address. She did not recall telling any police officers or parole agents that Gaxiola no longer lived at the Florence Avenue address. Nor did she recall any officers, other than his parole officer, coming to her Florence Avenue address and inquiring about Gaxiola.
Chenille Zapata testified that she lived at the Chanslor Avenue address and Gaxiola was dating her mother, Cynthia Campos. On January 26, 2007, a parole agent and police officers came to the Chanslor Avenue address looking for Gaxiola. Zapata said that Gaxiola was not there, and he did not live at that address, although he sometimes visited. Zapata denied telling the officers that Gaxiola used to live at the Chanslor address but had been “kicked out.” Cynthia Campos testified and corroborated her daughter’s testimony that Gaxiola visited the Chanslor Avenue address, but never resided there.
The parties stipulated that parole officer Julissa Lucero visited Gaxiola once at the Florence Avenue address and met him once in her office and that Gaxiola was in good standing with his parole officer.
At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel argued the parole search was unconstitutionally arbitrary, capricious and harassing, and the trial court should suppress the methamphetamine seized as a result of the search. The court denied the motion, finding the parole search was reasonable and prompted by routine rehabilitative and legitimate law enforcement purposes. Gaxiola was on parole and Williams and Bell police officers were aware of his parole status. Gaxiola had never been subjected before to a parole search. This particular search was conducted during the early evening and there was no evidence the search was prolonged. Williams did not know Gaxiola, and Dixon did not appear to harbor any personal animosity towards him.
Immediately after the trial court’s ruling on the motion, Gaxiola entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine and admitted he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Gaxiola was sentenced to 32 months in state prison, consisting of the lower term of 16 months doubled under the Three Strikes law. Gaxiola received presentence custody credit of 260 days (174 actual days and 86 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Gaxiola to pay a $20 security assessment, a $50 lab fee, and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. The remaining special allegation that Gaxiola had served a separate prison term for a felony was dismissed in furtherance of justice.
Gaxiola filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. We appointed counsel to represent Gaxiola on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On December 4, 2007, we advised Gaxiola he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Gaxiola’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The record supports the denial of the motion to suppress evidence. (Samson v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 843 [126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250]; People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J., ZELON, J.