Opinion
B299410
06-02-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LANSEY HOGAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Jason M. Howell, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. NA108507) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. Jason M. Howell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Lansey Hogan was convicted by a jury of two counts of misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377. Hogan's counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In the early evening of February 11, 2018, the police executed an arrest warrant on an unrelated case for Hogan at his uncle's home. Hogan's uncle answered the door and retrieved him from the back of the home after the officers explained their purpose. The officers waited outside and Hogan voluntarily exited the home. As he exited, an officer observed Hogan toss a white object to the side of the door. The officer requested Hogan's uncle hand the object to the officers. The white object consisted of three bindles of methamphetamine and the officers found a fourth bindle in one of Hogan's pockets. The methamphetamine totaled 9.7 grams. The officers also found approximately $1,100 in cash in Hogan's wallet.
Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to exclude this evidence because the arrest warrant had been withdrawn that morning. Defense counsel argued it was a search incident to an illegal arrest. The trial court denied the suppression motion, finding the warrant squad acted in good faith in relying on the warrant. Alternatively, it concluded Hogan voluntarily stepped outside of the home, but threw something to the side as he did so. This conduct created probable cause for the officers to briefly detain him and investigate.
In a separate incident on June 14, 2018, officers observed Hogan riding a bicycle against traffic in Long Beach in violation of traffic laws. When he was stopped, he immediately admitted he had methamphetamine on his person. The officers recovered four bindles of methamphetamine, totaling 15.23 grams.
Hogan was charged with two counts of felony possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. The information further alleged a prior conviction enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
At trial, the People presented evidence of the two incidents as described above. An expert for the People opined Hogan intended to sell the methamphetamine based on a number of factors, including his prior conviction for sale of methamphetamine, the weight of the methamphetamine recovered, the packaging of the methamphetamine, the amount of cash on Hogan, and the denominations of the bills.
The trial court had previously denied a defense motion to exclude evidence of the prior convictions for sale and possession of narcotics under Evidence Code section 352.
Hogan testified and confessed to possession of the methamphetamine in both instances, but denied he had the intent to sell. He explained he has used drugs for over 40 years, and specifically methamphetamine for the past 10 years. He admitted he suffered three convictions for possession, but only one conviction for sale.
At the time of the incidents, Hogan took 30 or 40 hits of methamphetamine throughout each day. He purchased methamphetamine in larger quantities because he did not want to go to his local drug dealer so frequently. On February 11, 2018, he purchased enough methamphetamine to "party" with one or two friends. Hogan explained he had $1,100 in cash because he had just sold his car for $1,500 the day before. Hogan also confessed to buying $60 worth of methamphetamine on June 14, 2018. He was on his way back to his uncle's house to share it with his friends when he was stopped.
The jury found Hogan not guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale, but found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor possession as to both counts. Hogan was sentenced to 364 days in county jail for each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Hogan timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, we appointed counsel, who filed an opening brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting independent review of the record for arguable issues. On March 17, 2020, we ordered appointed counsel to notify Hogan that counsel has not raised any arguable issues, and to send Hogan a copy of the Wende brief as well as the record on appeal to allow him to submit any claims, arguments, or issues that he wished our court to review. Hogan's counsel did so. We have received no reply from Hogan.
Our own letter to Hogan was returned undeliverable with no forwarding address. Hogan had an obligation to advise this court of any changes of address that occurred while his appeal was pending. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.32.) He failed to do so. In any case, his appointed counsel complied with our March 17, 2020 order and did not indicate any mail was returned to him as undeliverable. --------
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issues exist and Hogan's counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J. WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, J.
WILEY, J.