From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Romero

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Apr 17, 2009
No. E046241 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FWV801415, Joan Marie Borba, Judge.

Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

HOLLENHORST, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Norma Jean Romero appeals from her conviction of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A search warrant was executed on defendant’s home in March 2008, and a deputy found a methamphetamine pipe with .33 grams of methamphetamine, a usable quantity, in defendant’s bedroom. Defendant moved to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. The motion was heard and denied at the preliminary hearing. At her arraignment, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) She did not mention or renew her motion to suppress evidence.

The facts are taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.

A sealed clerk’s transcript containing the search warrant affidavit was filed with this court, and we have reviewed the transcript.

III. ANALYSIS

After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and one potential arguable issue, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. The potential arguable issue was whether defendant might appeal from the denial of her motion to suppress evidence at the preliminary hearing. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. An order denying a suppression motion made before or during a preliminary hearing is not appealable unless it has been renewed in the superior court following arraignment on the information. (People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896-897.) A preliminary hearing is conducted by a magistrate who does not sit as a superior court judge. (People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574, 584.)

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: RAMIREZ, P. J., MCKINSTER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Romero

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Apr 17, 2009
No. E046241 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Romero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMA JEAN ROMERO, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Apr 17, 2009

Citations

No. E046241 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2009)