From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Salcedo

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Mar 8, 2012
H036682 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2012)

Opinion

H036682

03-08-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN PADILLA SALCEDO, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Monterey County

Super. Ct. No. SS102086)

Defendant Christian Padilla Salcedo was arrested for possession of a concealed firearm after police conducted a routine traffic stop of a car where defendant was a passenger. Defendant was charged with one count of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (a)(3).) It was further alleged in connection with this count that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm was stolen (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (b)(2)), that he was at the time an active participant in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (b)(3)), that he was not the registered owner of the firearm (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (b)(6)), and that the crime was committed for the benefit of, or in association with a criminal street gang with specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant was also charged with one count of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle, with all the same special allegations as the first count. (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1).)

At the preliminary hearing, defendant's counsel moved to suppress the evidence of the gun pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 on the ground that the original detention of the vehicle was illegal. The trial court denied the motion, finding the officer's testimony regarding the basis for the stop to be credible. Trial counsel did not renew the motion in the superior court. After defendant was held to answer, he agreed to plead guilty to one felony count of carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (a)(3)), and admit the special allegation of not being the registered owner of the firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12025 (b)(6).) He also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor gang count. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years in state prison. A timely appeal ensued, and the trial court granted a certificate of probable cause as to the issues raised in the motion to suppress evidence. An amended notice of appeal was filed also challenging the validity of the plea in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).

On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received nothing from the defendant. Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the record but have found no arguable issues on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

________________________

RUSHING, P.J.
WE CONCUR:

________________________

PREMO, J.

________________________

ELIA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Salcedo

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Mar 8, 2012
H036682 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Salcedo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN PADILLA SALCEDO…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Mar 8, 2012

Citations

H036682 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2012)