From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lara

Court of Appeal of California
Jul 30, 2008
A119155 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)

Opinion

A119155

7-30-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RIGOBERTO LARA, Defendant and Appellant.

Not to be Published


This appeal is taken from the conviction following appellant Rigoberto Laras plea of nolo contendre following denial of his motion to suppress evidence. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

BACKGROUND

About 4:00 p.m. on May 5, 2006, Officer Marchese applied for a search warrant of 998 Runnymede Street in East Palo Alto. The residence was described as a "two-story family dwelling" with "two detached structures to the rear of the property which are controlled and occupied by the residents of the main property." At the time of this application, the investigating officers believed the front two-story dwelling to be a single-family residence occupied by Angel Garcia Lara. The information gathered by Officer Marchese prior to requesting the search warrant lacked any indication that the address contained multiple and discrete dwellings.

About 7:15 p.m. on the evening of May 5, 2006, officers served the search warrant on 998 Runnymede Street. Approximately 30 officers were divided into three teams. In unison, the first team moved to engage in knock-notice and entry into the front residence, as the second team secured the center courtyard between the front residence and the rear structure, and the third team engaged in knock-notice and entry of the rear structure. As they cleared the downstairs and empty unit in the front residence, they realized the building was divided into separate residences. They also noticed a man, later identified as Ruezga, standing on the second story balcony of the front residence. Officers continued searching the front building because they had information that Angel Garcia Lara resided in the front building and because they needed to secure an individual detained on the second floor. Upon entering the second floor, officers saw assault weapons and chemicals.

After knock-notice at the rear structure, officers forced entry into the residence. Once inside the rear structure, officers detained appellant among others. Appellant verbally identified himself as Angel Garcia Laras son. Angel Lara Garcia rented the rear structure of this residence and resided there with his family. Wholesale quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana, in addition to scales, packaging materials, money, loaded firearms, and over 25 pounds of pseudoephedrine tablets were seized from the rear structure. Concurrent with team one clearing the front two-story dwelling, team three gave the prearranged signal to evacuate the premises because evidence of a methamphetamine lab was suspected in the rear structure.

On August 22, 2006, appellant was charged with eight felony counts occurring on or about May 5, 2006 including: count 1, possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); count 2, possession of cocaine for sale (§ 11351); count 3, possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359); count 4, possession of cocaine for sale while armed (§ 11370.1, subd. (a)); count 5, possession of methamphetamine for sale while armed (§ 11370.1, subd. (a)); count 6, possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine (§ 11383, subd. (c)(1)); count 8, manufacturing methamphetamine (§ 11379.6, subd. (a)); and count 15, possession of a firearm by an ex-felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)).

The information alleged the following as enhancements: to counts 1, 2, and 8, that appellant had been personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 12022, subd. (c)); as to counts 1 and 2, that appellant possessed more than 28.5 grams, respectively, of methamphetamine and cocaine (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(1) & (2)). As to count 1 only, the information alleged an additional enhancement for possession of more than a kilogram of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11370.4, subd. (b)(1)).

On February 27, 2007, the trial court denied, in a written order, appellants motions to suppress evidence and to disclose the identity of a prosecution informant. The Court of Appeal denied appellants petition for relief by writ of prohibition/mandate.

On August 20, 2007, pursuant to a negotiated plea, the court accepted appellants request to withdraw his initial not-guilty plea and allowed him to enter a new and different plea. Appellant, while represented and informed by counsel, intelligently and voluntarily pled nolo contendere to count 8, violation of section 11379.6, subdivision (a), manufacturing methamphetamine, which was factually based on stipulated facts within the preliminary hearing transcript. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, all remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed.

Before accepting appellants nolo contendere plea, the court advised him of the constitutional rights he would waive by entry of the plea, including the right to jury trial, his privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to confrontation by and cross-examination of witnesses. The court also described for appellant the maximum penalties and consequences of the plea, including deportation or denial of naturalization as well as registration requirements.

Prior to appellant waiving his right to a probation report, time for sentencing, and arraignment for judgment, the court advised him of such rights including his right to have his case sent to the Probation Department for a probation report and recommendation. The court sentenced appellant to the lower term of three years in state prison and awarded him 709 days credit for times served. Appellant was ordered to pay $220.00 to the State Restitution Fund. The court stayed a $200.00 fine payable to the California Department of Corrections (pending successful completion of parole) and a security fee of $20.00. In addition, appellant was ordered to register as a drug offender and to undergo genetic marker testing.

On September 20, 2007, appellant filed this timely appeal.

The opening Wende brief was filed on May 1, 2008. In a letter dated April 29, 2008, sent to appellants last known address, counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental opening brief within 30 days of counsels opening brief on his own behalf. Appellants brief was due on June 13, 2008. To date, appellant has not filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf.

Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

Kline, P.J.

Richman, J. --------------- Notes: All further references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.


Summaries of

People v. Lara

Court of Appeal of California
Jul 30, 2008
A119155 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Lara

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RIGOBERTO LARA, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Jul 30, 2008

Citations

A119155 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)