Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo Michael L. Duffy, Judge
Lyn A. Woodward, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Ryan Andrew Merritt appeals a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded guilty to attempted grand theft of personal property. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/487, subd. (a).) We appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On October 12, 2007, we advised Merritt that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him contending that police officers did not have probable cause to search because they had no reasonable basis to believe that he had joint or exclusive access to the apartment where the seized items were found. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Merritt's contentions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The prosecutor charged Merritt with one count of receiving stolen property and one count of attempted grand theft. (§§ 496, subd. (a), 664, 487, subd. (a).) The prosecutor also alleged that Merritt served a prior prison term and was on bail at the time he committed the charged offenses. (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 12022.1.) Merritt filed a motion pursuant to section 1538.5, challenging the parole search of the residence where police officers found stolen property. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, heard argument, and then denied the motion.
On March 29, 2007, Merritt, represented by counsel, received advice of and waived his constitutional rights. Merritt then pleaded guilty to attempted grand theft in exchange for dismissal of the receiving stolen property count and the charged enhancements. The trial court sentenced him to a low-term sentence of eight months, and awarded 241 days' actual custody and conduct credits.
DISCUSSION
San Luis Obispo sheriff's deputies knew that Merritt, a parolee, had outstanding arrest warrants. They observed an apartment complex where they believed he might be residing. The deputies saw Merritt walk to an apartment, holding keys in his hand. They placed him under arrest as he was opening the door. The deputies then conducted a parole search of the apartment and found stolen property. They discovered documents bearing Merritt's name and found his mail in the apartment's mailbox.
At the suppression hearing, Merritt's mother testified that the apartment was her residence. She stated that the apartment contained her clothing and possessions and that she did not see any stolen property there.
The trial court denied the suppression motion, stating that it was reasonable for the sheriff's deputies to conclude that Merritt was the occupant of the apartment. The trial court properly denied the motion. In our review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to its factual findings, express or implied where supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 924.) We then determine independently whether, upon the facts so found, the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Ibid.) Here the apartment contained documents addressed to Merritt, the mailbox contained his mail, and he was entering the apartment with a key when arrested. The search was reasonable pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN, J.