Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI700575. Margaret A. Powers, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RICHLI, J.
A jury found defendant Mayorico Lora Lora guilty of possession of a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine, for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) (count 1) and transportation of a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) (count 2). The jury also found true that as to both counts the amount of cocaine exceeded 40 kilograms within the meaning of Health and Safety Code, section 11370.4, subdivision (a)(5). As a result, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 24 years in state prison: the midterm of four years on count 2, plus 20 years for the weight enhancement; sentence on count 1 was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2006, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Finneran and California Highway Patrol Officer Robert Mendenhall were involved in a task force surveillance for cocaine trafficking. As part of the surveillance, officers placed a tracking device on a semi-truck registered to Lupercino Gonzales doing business as SGM trucking in Covina. The truck was also registered to Jose Carbahal in Adelanto. The device was later discovered and destroyed. The task force never found the registered owner.
The officers later obtained a wiretap for five or six telephones in September 2006. One of those telephones was defendant’s cellular telephone. Intelligence gathered from the wiretap indicated defendant was to be transporting multiple kilograms of cocaine to the East Coast in a semi-truck. During the following surveillance of the truck, officers observed defendant pull the truck over, and a car parked in front of him. Two unidentified men exited the truck, removed two duffle bags from the car, and put the bags in the cab portion of the truck. During this time, defendant spoke with the driver of the other vehicle. Defendant apparently never touched the bags. The two unidentified men then left in the car, and defendant left in the truck. The officers followed.
While on the Interstate 15 freeway, defendant intentionally drove past the commercial vehicle weigh station without stopping. The officers thereafter conducted a traffic stop. Defendant appeared nervous during the stop. He denied any knowledge of contraband in the truck, and signed a consent-to-search form. The two duffle bags were located in the back of the cab and contained about 60 kilograms of cocaine. An expert estimated the cocaine had a street value of a minimum of $5 million and as much as $10 million if cut with another substance. Defendant was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, and released to allow the task force to intercept additional telephone calls. Additional telephone calls were intercepted.
Defendant was arrested in April 2007, after he walked into a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department substation in Fontana, inquiring if there was a warrant for his arrest due to unpaid tickets. An information charging defendant with drug-related offenses was filed on June 6, 2007.
On April 29, 2008, defendant filed a motion to unseal the entire affidavit used in support for the application for the wiretap. The motion was denied on May 23, 2008.
During trial, a prosecution witness accidentally stated that defendant had invoked his right to counsel after he had initially been released. Defense counsel objected, and the court struck the answer. Defense counsel later twice moved for a mistrial, arguing that the testimony had violated defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Counsel argued that the testimony would have a chilling effect on defendant’s decision to testify. The court twice denied the motion but agreed to give a curative instruction.
The jury subsequently found defendant guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 24 years in state prison.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, Acting P.J., KING, J.