Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA325709, Dorothy B. Reyes, Judge.
Ronda G. Norris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
After his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code sections 995 and 1538.5 was denied, defendant and appellant Garnik Sahakian entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Defendant was placed on three years of formal probation pursuant to Proposition 36. Probationary conditions included a program for drug abuse counseling, a $200 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), a $50 laboratory fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, and a $20 court security fee. ~(CT 134-135)~
Evidence presented at the preliminary hearing revealed that defendant was observed at night at a car in the parking lot of a closed automobile body shop. The location was an area known for theft related offenses. When officers stopped to investigate, defendant approached them in an aggressive fashion. Defendant gave conflicting statements regarding ownership of the car. Due to defendant’s aggressive and threatening conduct, the officers placed defendant in handcuffs and conducted a pat down search leading to the discovery of a Brillo pad, which is often used as a filter in cocaine pipes. While the officers continued to investigate ownership of the car, a cocaine pipe was observed on the floor of the car. The pipe was in plain view through the open car door. A subsequent search of the car resulted in seizure of a plastic bindle containing .09 grams of cocaine base, which formed the basis for the felony charge against defendant. The search was found valid under the Fourth Amendment by the trial court pursuant to the plain view rule.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On May 6, 2008, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues but asking this court to independently review the record for arguable contentions. Defendant was notified by letter dated May 6, 2008, of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant has not responded, and the time to file brief has lapsed.
We have conducted an independent review of the appellate record for arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283-284.) No arguable issues exist for purposes of this appeal. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J., MOSK, J.