Filed 8/26/13 P. v. Lopez CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOEL LOPEZ et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 B242990

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA390627)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John 

Fisher, Judge. Affirmed.

Lyn A. Woodward, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant Joel Lopez.

Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant Juan Jose Madrid.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________
2

Defendants Joel Lopez and Juan Jose Madrid appeal from their conviction 

following no contest pleas to the charge of possession for sale of cocaine, entered after 

the trial court denied their joint motion to quash a search warrant. Following our 

independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 

(Wende), we affirm both convictions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We glean the following facts from City of Cypress Police Detective Scott 

Ausmus’s search warrant application and preliminary hearing testimony. In a Statement 

of Probable Cause submitted in support of the search warrant application, Ausmus 

recounted that undercover officers surveilling the Macy’s parking lot at the Cerritos Mall 

in the early evening on October 27, 2011, observed a blue Nissan park next to a gold 

Toyota. Lopez and Madrid got out of the Nissan. While the driver stood by the Nissan’s 

trunk, the passenger walked towards Macy’s where he met a woman. The woman and 

the Nissan passenger walked to the Nissan. The trunks of both the Nissan and the Toyota 

opened. The Nissan passenger removed a black nylon bag from the Nissan trunk and 

placed it in the Toyota trunk, then got into the driver’s seat of the Toyota. The Nissan 

driver returned to the driver’s seat of the Nissan and both cars drove away in separate 

directions. Officers continued surveilling both cars as they were driven in an evasive 

manner (e.g. over the speed limit, unsafe lane changes, etc.). Eventually the cab stopped 

in the driveway of a single family residence on Summer Avenue in Norwalk. 

When officers resumed surveillance of the Summer Avenue residence 

November 1, both the Nissan and the Toyota were parked at that location. Later, a black 

two-door Acura pulled into the driveway. The man who had previously been observed 

driving the Nissan got out of the Acura’s passenger’s seat and entered the residence; the 

Acura’s driver followed a minute later. 

A DEA agent informed Ausmus that he was familiar with the Acura seen at the 

Summer Avenue residence and that it had a secret compartment used to transport illegal 

narcotics. 
3

Officers resumed surveillance of the Summer Avenue residence about 8:00 a.m. 

the next day, November 2. About 4:15 p.m., Lopez and Madrid left in the Acura. 

Officers followed as the Acura pulled into parking lots at a gas station, a Kmart and a 

Carl’s Jr. In the gas station and Kmart parking lots, the Acura passenger got out of the 

car, looked around and then got back into the car, which proceeded to the next parking 

lot. Ausmus characterized this as counter-surveillance driving intended to elude police 

detection. In the Carl’s Jr. parking lot, the Acura parked next to a white Ford Edge with 

paper license plates. The drivers of the Acura and the Ford met each other inside the 

Carl’s Jr. while the Acura passenger remained in the car, talking on a cell phone and 

looking around. About five minutes later, the drivers returned to their vehicles and both 

cars returned to the Kmart parking lot where they parked next to each other. All three 

men got out of their respective cars and transferred two large plastic bins from the Ford 

hatchback to the Acura trunk. The men then returned to their cars and drove away in 

separate directions. Officers followed the Acura back to the Summer Avenue residence 

where it pulled into the garage and the garage door was closed. In Ausmus’s opinion, 

two narcotics transactions had occurred and the Summer Avenue residence was being 

used as a “stash house.” A search warrant issued for the Summer Avenue residence and 

the three cars (Nissan, Toyota and Acura). 

Immediately before executing the warrant, officers observed Lopez in the Toyota 

and Madrid in the Nissan drive away from the Summer Avenue residence. Both men 

were stopped. Madrid was found to be in possession of a large amount of U.S. currency, 

but no driver’s license. Meanwhile, at the residence, in a locked bedroom identified by 

Lopez’s wife as Madrid’s room, officers found mail addressed to Madrid and a loaded 

semi-automatic handgun, which they seized. From under the house, accessible through a 

trap door in a coat closet, officers seized 51 separately wrapped kilos of cocaine and two 

money counters. From elsewhere in the house officers seized 52 packages “appearing to 

be trash of previous wrapped kilos,” packaging material and a black suitcase. A pickup 

truck with false compartments was found in the garage. 
4

Lopez and Madrid were jointly charged with possession of cocaine for sale (count 

1) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and use of a false compartment to transport a controlled 

substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.8, subd. (a)) (counts 2 [the Acura] and 4 [the 

pickup truck]); Madrid was also charged with possession of a controlled substance with a 

firearm (Health & Saf. Code, §11370.1, subd. (a)) (count 3); as to count 1, a weight 

enhancement was alleged as to both defendants (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, 

subd. (a)(5)) and a personally armed enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)) was 

alleged as to Madrid only. 

Lopez and Madrid moved to quash, or in the alternative traverse, the search 

warrant and suppress all evidence obtained in the search. In opposition to the motion to 

quash, the People maintained probable cause was established by the totality of the 

circumstances, including information obtained from the DEA agent about a secret 

compartment in the Acura, the counter-surveillance driving and the two hand-offs. The 

trial court denied the motion to quash. Finding no basis to hold a Franks hearing1 at that 

time, the court agreed to hear testimony relevant to the motion to traverse during the 

preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, Ausmus testified that he prepared the 

Statement of Probable Cause from his own notes which sometimes reflected what other 

officers told him. After preparing the warrant application, Ausmus destroyed his notes as 

he was trained to do; other than the warrant application, Ausmus did not write any reports 

of the three day surveillance and he did not believe any other officer did so. The trial 

court did not expressly rule on the motion to traverse, nor did either defense counsel 

request a ruling. Madrid’s subsequent Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the 

information for insufficiency of the evidence was denied. 

Lopez and Madrid each pled no contest to possession of cocaine for sale and 

admitted a different weight enhancement. The remaining counts were dismissed. Both 

were sentenced to 12 years in prison. 

 

1 Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 [where defendant makes 

substantial preliminary showing that a false statement in the warrant affidavit led to 

finding of probable cause, Fourth Amendment requires hearing at defendant’s request].
5

We appointed separate counsel to represent each defendant on appeal. After 

examination of the record, each appointed counsel filed a separate opening brief which 

contained an acknowledgment that they had been unable to find any arguable issues and 

requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436. On April 11, 2013, we advised Madrid that he had 30 days within which to 

personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On 

April 19, 2013, we gave an identical advisement to Lopez. Neither defendant has filed 

anything.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that both appointed counsel 

have fully complied with their responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist vis a vis 

either defendant. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

RUBIN, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

FLIER, J.

GRIMES, J.