Filed 4/6/15 P. v. Chavez CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MIGUEL CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H041435

 (Santa Cruz County

 Super. Ct. No. F26660)

Defendant Miguel Chavez pleaded guilty to felony methamphetamine possession 

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and no contest to resisting arrest (Pen. Code, §

148, subd. (a)(1)).1The court deferred entry of judgment for the felony (§ 1000 et seq.) 

and placed defendant on misdemeanor probation for the other offense. Upon defendant’s

timely appeal, we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appellate counsel 

filed a brief stating the case and facts but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his 

right to submit written argument on his own behalf and received no response. 

We have reviewed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable 

appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440-441.) We include here a 

brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, and the convictions and

punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.) 

An order deferring entry of judgment is not appealable. (People v. Mazurette 

(2001) 24 Cal.4th 789, 794-795.) However, because this is “a criminal action in which a 

 

1

 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

misdemeanor or infraction is charged in conjunction with a felony” (§ 691, subd. (f)), this 

is a felony case and the order granting misdemeanor probation is properly before this 

court. (§§ 1235, subd. (b) [stating appeals in a “felony case,” as defined in § 691, are to 

the court of appeal]; 1237, subd. (a) [defendant may appeal “order granting probation”].)

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS 

California Wildlife Officer Jacob Juarez testified at defendant’s preliminary 

examination that while patrolling the Pajaro River in Watsonville in April 2014, Juarez 

saw a crudely built shack built on government property. He saw three individuals 

(including defendant) loitering about 60 feet from the encampment. Juarez asked the 

individuals to come to the top of a levee where he was standing so he could determine 

whether they were associated with the shack. When Juarez asked if defendant had any 

weapons, defendant admitted he had a knife in one of his pockets. Juarez patted down

defendant, removed the knife, and felt a small, hard object that he thought might be 

another knife. When Juarez removed that small object he discovered it was a vial 

containing a white crystalline substance Juarez suspected was methamphetamine. Juarez 

decided to arrest defendant but when he tried to handcuff him defendant broke free and 

ran away. Juarez used his taser four times to stop defendant from fleeing.

Defendant moved before the preliminary hearing to suppress the evidence 

obtained during Juarez’s search (§ 1538.5), which the magistrate denied. Defendant was 

held to answer and was charged by information with felony possession of a controlled 

substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd.

(a)(1)). The information also alleged a prior serious or violent felony conviction (§ 667, 

subd. (b)), and ineligibility for a county jail sentence due to a prior serious or violent 

felony conviction (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3)).

Defendant moved to set aside the information (§ 995), arguing that the pat search 

was an unreasonable search and seizure. The court denied the motion. Defendant 

thereafter pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and the court granted the 
3

prosecutor’s motion to defer entry of judgment on that count for 18 months, pending 

completion of a drug treatment program. (§ 1000 et seq.) Defendant pleaded no contest 

to misdemeanor resisting arrest and the court suspended imposition of sentence for two 

years and placed defendant on informal probation. A condition requiring two days jail 

was deemed served based on defendant’s presentence custody credits.

We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue.

II. DISPOSITION

The order granting misdemeanor probation is affirmed.
____________________________________

Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________

Rushing, P.J. 

____________________________

Márquez, J.