1

Filed 3/4/13 P. v. Chavez CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Siskiyou)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARTIN DEANTES CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

C071797

(Super. Ct. No. 12-144)

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having 

reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the 

following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. 

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

In January 2012, a Siskiyou County task force was conducting a criminal 

interdiction operation in front of a fast food restaurant. Defendant Martin Deantes 

Chavez was a passenger on a bus from Los Angeles that stopped at the restaurant. A 

narcotic trained and certified canine inspected the luggage under the bays in the bus and 

alerted to the presence of a narcotic odor from a red and black suitcase. The officers 

attempted to find the owner of that suitcase. Officer Shannon noticed one of the 
2

passengers, defendant, was behaving suspiciously by not returning directly to the bus. 

Upon being asked, defendant denied having any bags on the bus. Eventually, defendant 

admitted that the bag belonged to him and consented to a search of the bag.

Inside the suitcase, amidst defendant’s clothes, were numerous bundles wrapped in 

duct tape and later determined to be 11.8 pounds of methamphetamine. Defendant 

claimed he did not pack the bag. He said he had met a man named Julio in Los Angeles, 

who offered him $200 for taking a suitcase with him to Portland. Defendant gave Julio 

his clothes and Julio packed the suitcase and returned it to defendant. Julio paid 

defendant’s fare to Portland, told defendant he would be met in Portland, and implicitly 

threatened defendant’s family.

Defendant was charged with transportation of methamphetamine for sale from a 

non-contiguous county (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (b); count 1) and possession 

for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2). As to both 

counts it was alleged the amount of methamphetamine precluded a grant of probation, 

except in an unusual case. (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(2).) As to count 1 it was 

alleged that defendant transported more than four kilograms of methamphetamine (Health 

& Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (b)(2)) and as to count 2 it was alleged defendant 

possessed more than one kilogram of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, 

subd. (b)(1)).

The parties agreed to a negotiated plea bargain. Defendant pleaded guilty to 

count 2, and admitted the quantity enhancement allegation in exchange for a stipulated 

sentence of four years four months, and dismissal of the remaining charges. Defendant 

also agreed to waive 60 days of actual presentence custody credits. Defendant was 

properly advised of his rights and waived those rights. The court found defendant 

understood the nature of the crimes he was charged with and allegations made against 

him and the consequences of his plea. The court also found he had knowingly and 
3

voluntarily waived his constitutional and statutory rights and his waiver of rights and 

admission of guilt were freely made.

Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea to the mitigated term of 16 

months on count 2 and an additional consecutive term of three years on the enhancement, 

for an aggregate term of four years four months. Defendant was ordered to pay a 

restitution fund fine of $960, reimburse the probation department $420 for the 

preparation of the presentence report, pay a criminal lab fee of $145, a drug program fee 

of $145, a court security fee of $40, a criminal conviction assessment of $30, a $148 

booking fee, and a $35 administration fee. He was also awarded 217 days of presentence 

custody credit.

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

requesting this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by 

counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the 

opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from 

defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no additional 

arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

We concur:

 NICHOLSON , J.

 BUTZ , J.