From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martin-Bird

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Jun 21, 2018
C085892 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2018)

Opinion

C085892

06-21-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE ANTHONY MARTIN-BIRD, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17FE001939)

Appointed counsel for defendant Maurice Anthony Martin-Bird asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

In January 2017, law enforcement contacted defendant at the rear of a vehicle. The trunk was open. When defendant saw the police officers, he shut the trunk, and began to walk away from the vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed a .38-caliber revolver in the trunk of the car. Defendant admitted it was his gun. He was not the registered owner.

A complaint charged defendant with unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm in public and alleged he was not the registered owner of the firearm. (Pen. Code, § 25850, subds. (a), (c)(6).) Defendant filed a motion to suppress the firearm based on the warrantless search of the vehicle. The trial court found defendant lacked standing to challenge the search, as the vehicle was not his. The court also found the search was justified, in part, because defendant was on searchable probation at the time of the search, and denied the suppression motion.

Defendant pleaded no contest to being unlawfully in possession of a loaded firearm in a public place and admitted he was not the registered owner of the firearm. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on a five-year term of formal probation with 90 days in county jail as a condition. The court imposed various fines and fees and waived others.

Defendant timely appealed, and did not seek a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel initially represented that he could not locate defendant to give him a copy of the brief and the requisite advisement. Counsel's response to our order to show cause as to why we should not dismiss this appeal as abandoned represented that he had located defendant and had provided him with the brief and other materials. Counsel later clarified by declaration that at the time of that contact he had also advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.

More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

DUARTE, J. We concur: RAYE, P. J. MAURO, J.


Summaries of

People v. Martin-Bird

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Jun 21, 2018
C085892 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2018)
Case details for

People v. Martin-Bird

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE ANTHONY MARTIN-BIRD…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

Date published: Jun 21, 2018

Citations

C085892 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2018)