From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martinez

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Jul 16, 2008
No. B203807 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA056066, John Fisher, Judge.

Robert Derham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


EPSTEIN, P. J.

Orlando Martinez appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and his no contest plea to possession of a weapon (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1). He was sentenced to prison for the low term of 16 months.

At the suppression hearing, appellant claimed that the search of his belongings was made without a warrant and without his knowing, intelligent, and voluntary consent. The evidence at the hearing established that on June 19, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Ammon Williams, who was working undercover, approached appellant to find out what he was doing. Officer Williams displayed his badge, identified himself as a police officer and asked appellant his name, what he was doing and how long he had been there. Officer Williams spoke to appellant in English and had no difficulty communicating with him. Appellant was standing next to a stack of milk crates, which had “a bunch of different belongings put into it,” and Officer Williams observed appellant look down into the crates. Officer Williams saw a “plastic bindle of marijuana” and as he spoke with appellant, appellant moved his body closer to the location of the marijuana.

When Officer Williams recovered the marijuana, appellant stated he had found it earlier in the day and did not smoke “weed.” Officer Williams then asked appellant if he could search his belongings for any other narcotics or weapons and appellant said that would be fine. By “belongings,” Officer Williams was referring to a couple of backpacks and loose clothing in the milk crates. In the milk crate where the marijuana had been resting, Officer Williams found a rolled up shirt. It was very heavy and he felt the form of a gun inside. When he unrolled the shirt, Officer Williams observed a double barreled, sawed off shotgun.

The area where appellant was standing appeared to be a place where people “might stay during the day, loiter out there during the day.” Appellant stated he had been there for a couple of weeks. While appellant had been standing with a woman, Officer Williams did not observe any female clothing in the crates. The clothing was men’s clothing and appeared to be appellant’s size. When Officer Williams recovered the shotgun, appellant stated he had found it “dumpster diving,” and Officer Williams therefore understood the items he asked to search belonged to appellant.

Appellant testified that with regard to the things the officer asked to search, some of them belonged to appellant and some belonged to other people who had been there before. Appellant confirmed he told the officer he had found the shotgun earlier and wrapped it in his clothing. He testified he “put that away. [He] didn’t know what to do with that thing. And [he] was very nervous.” He confirmed the officer had asked him permission to search the bundle of clothing. Appellant did not believe he had the right to refuse the officer’s request to search. Appellant was handcuffed after Officer Williams recovered the shotgun.

After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On March 28, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: WILLHITE, J., MANELLA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Martinez

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Jul 16, 2008
No. B203807 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ORLANDO MARTINEZ, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

Date published: Jul 16, 2008

Citations

No. B203807 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 2008)