Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County., No. VA114385, Debra Cole-Hall, Judge.
Margaret E. Dunk for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ARMSTRONG, J.
Defendant Brian Jerome Patton was charged by an information filed on April 1, 2010, with the crimes of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony and possession of ammunition by a person previously convicted of a felony, in violation of Penal Code sections 12021, subdivision (a)(1) and 12316, subdivision (b)(1). The information also alleged as to both of these counts that defendant previously suffered a conviction for a serious or violent felony and that he served a term in prison and did not remain free of custody for a period of five years thereafter, pursuant to Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivision (a) through (d), 667, subdivision (b) through (i), and 667.5, subdivision (b).
Defendant was convicted of the charged offenses, and sentenced to a total of five years in state prison. He timely appealed his conviction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At approximately 6:30 p.m. on March 3, 2010, several members of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department arrived at a residence located at 12449 Jersey Avenue in Norwalk to conduct a parole search. Six people – three adults and three children – were present when the police arrived, and were detained for the duration of the search. The officers recovered a.38 caliber handgun and ammunition from the bedroom of defendant's brother, Wiley Harris, who confirmed that the gun belonged to him. They also recovered a loaded 12-gauge shotgun from the garage, which had been converted into a rec room of sorts; this room contained a bed, dresser, sofa, television, PlayStation, closet and bathroom. The officers testified that this room appeared to be currently used as living quarters – there was underwear in the dresser, clothes in the closet, and the bed had sheets and a comforter on it. The police found in a drawer of the dresser defendant's valid driver's license, several pieces of mail addressed to him at the 12449 Jersey Avenue address, and a box of ammunition for the shotgun.
When told that a shotgun had been found "under your bed, " defendant did not deny that he lived in the converted garage, but stated that the gun was not his, but his brother Wiley's. Defendant also stated that he knew that his brother kept the gun somewhere in the garage, but did not know that it was under the bed. Mr. Harris was separately questioned about the shotgun at the conclusion of the search; he denied owning or knowing anything about the shotgun.
At trial, Mr. Harris testified that the shotgun and ammunition were his, and that he had said so to the police on the day of the search. Joyce Woodall, mother of both defendant and Mr. Harris, testified that she owned the residence in question, and that defendant was not living at the house on March 3, 2010, because she had kicked him out some three to four weeks earlier for failure to pay rent. Seante Starks, Mr. Harris's wife, confirmed that defendant did not live in the converted garage at the time of the search. Moreover, when he had previously resided at the house, he slept in the den area inside the house, not in the garage.
Defendant stipulated that, on November 30, 2006, he was convicted of one count of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211, a felony. Thus, the only question for the jury was whether defendant possessed the shotgun and ammunition found in the garage. As noted above, the jury concluded that he did.
DISCUSSION
After examination of the record, defendant's counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. On December 15, 2010, we advised defendant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or arguments which he wished this court to consider. Following the grant of an extension of time, defendant filed on February 14, 2011 a letter brief in which he asserts that a number of legal principles as well as factual inconsistencies in the record require that his conviction be overturned. He does not, however, articulate how these matters are implicated in this case. For example, defendant states that "They left out credibility questions and the verdict is not against the weight of evidence. (U.S. v. Zuno-Arce 44 F.3d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir. 1995). I told [defense counsel] that the same physical person used [Officer] John Suh during preliminary hearing but in trial using Det. Francis Espeleta (U.S. v. Young 17 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 1995)." These are not legal arguments which support the reversal of a judgment of conviction.
The general tenor of appellant's challenge to his conviction concerns the conduct of the police officers who performed the parole search and testified at trial: "This was an act of retaliation and the officers broke laws, violated my constitutional rights and I deserve justice. They... should face criminal charges, tampering with evidence, perjury, peace officers' false report, subornation of perjury and so much more." There is no evidence in the record to support these allegations, nor legal authority which would support the reversal of appellant's conviction. For example, even if the officers conducted the parole search in retaliation for a complaint appellant filed against the officers, appellant cites no authority, and we know of none, which holds that a parole search undertaken for retaliatory motives is illegal. Similarly, appellant complains that the officers obtained Ms. Starks's consent to search by threatening to take her children. Even if this were so (and there is no evidence in the record to support the assertion), Ms. Starks consented to the search of her own bedroom; the shotgun and ammunition which formed the basis of the criminal charges against appellant were found in the converted garage. Appellant has no standing to complain that Ms. Starks's constitutional rights were violated. (United States v. Payner (1980) 447 U.S. 727, 735; People v. Badgett (1995) 10 Cal.4th 330, 343.)
In sum, substantial evidence supports the jury's determination that defendant possessed the shotgun and ammunition found in the converted garage. Moreover, we have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's appellate attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J.MOSK, J.