Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF133615. Janice McIntyre, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Howard C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J.
Defendant and appellant Jesus Carreon Pena was charged with making, passing, or possessing counterfeit bills (Pen. Code, § 476, count 1) and possession of an apparatus to use to counterfeit bank notes and bills. (§ 480.) It was also alleged that defendant served two prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5. The court held a suppression hearing and denied the motion. Subsequently, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to count 1. The court dismissed count 2, struck the prior prison allegations, and sentenced defendant to two years in state prison. Defendant now appeals the denial of the motion to suppress. We affirm.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
We note that defendant’s appellate counsel filed a letter, dated August 28, 2007, stating that the clerk’s transcript contained no guilty plea form and that the superior court had been unable to locate such form. However, on August 30, 2007, the superior court clerk filed a certificate stating that the form was located; the clerk filed a supplemental transcript with a copy of the plea form.
The statement of facts is taken from the suppression hearing transcript.
Officer David Telles investigated a complaint regarding two people using counterfeit money at garage sales in Moreno Valley. The people were seen driving a white Dodge van with a red stripe and a certain license plate number. About one week later, Officer Telles observed a van matching that description, parked in front of a residence in Moreno Valley. He called for backup, ran a check of the vehicle identification number, and confirmed that the van was the same one reported earlier. He approached the residence and observed that there was a lot of debris, trash, appliances, and a broken barbeque pit around the outside of the house. The windows were open, there were no curtains, the front door was being held up with a nail, and the kitchen contained exposed plumbing lines. Officer Telles believed that the house was abandoned. He heard voices inside the house and thought there could be transients inside. He and the backup officers went inside the house, announcing their presence. They drew their weapons for safety reasons. They knocked on a bedroom door and announced their presence again. A male voice answered, and Officer Telles opened the door to find a man lying on the bed. Officer Telles asked his name and asked if anyone else was in the house. The man answered affirmatively, so the officers knocked on another bedroom door. Defendant and a woman came out of the second bedroom. The officers escorted all three occupants to the living room. Officer Telles asked if anyone was on probation or parole, and defendant admitted that he was on parole. One of the other officers confirmed that defendant was a parolee-at-large, with a felony warrant. Officer Telles read defendant his Miranda rights and asked if he could search the premises; defendant said he could. Officer Telles had defendant sign a consent to search form and then escorted him back to the bedroom where he was initially located. Officer Telles observed a printer, a paper cutter, multiple packages of white paper, and multiple pages of printed U.S. currency. Defendant admitted that he was making counterfeit U.S. currency with the printer.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
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, potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. He submitted a one-page letter to his appellate counsel, who filed the letter with this court on October 2, 2007. In his letter, defendant makes the unsupported assertion that the police officers entered the residence without a warrant or justification, and, thereby, violated search and seizure laws. Defendant’s claim merely reiterates the argument he made unsuccessfully to the trial court. The record before this court supports the lower court’s findings.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GAUT, J., MILLER, J.