Filed 9/9/13 P. v. L ozano CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PETER LOZAN O

Defendant and Appellant. B246039

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. VA126363)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger

Ito, Judge. Affirmed.

Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Ap peal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2012 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Rosemynn Gonzaga

stopped Peter Lozano for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk in violation of a local

ordinance. Deputy Gonzaga observed that Lozano was carrying a plastic bag with beer in

it and detected the odor of alcohol on Lozano’s breath. At Deputy Gonzaga’s request,

Lozano got off his bicycle. Deputy Gonza ga asked Lozano if he had been arrested, and

Lozano replied that he had been on parole but was not sure he was still on parole,

although he later stated he was “formerly on parole.” Lozano gave Deputy Gonzaga

consent to search his person. The deputy reco vered a bindle of methamphetamine in

Lozano’s pants pocket and placed him under arrest.

The District Attorney charged Lozano in an information with one count of

possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), with a special

allegat ion he had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the

meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12).

Represented by appointed counsel, Lozano pleaded not guilty and denied the special

allegation.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5),

Lozano entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine and

admitted the prior strike allegation. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court

impose d an aggregate state prison term of 32 months, consisting of the lower term

doubled as a second strike. The court ordered Lozano to pay a $40 court security fee, a

$30 criminal conviction assessment, and a $240 restitution fine. The court imposed and

sus pended a parole revocation fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Lozano was

awarded a total of 252 days of presentence custody credit (126 actual days and 126 days

of conduct credit).

Lozano filed a timely notice of appeal based on the denial of h is motion to

suppress. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(A).)3 DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Lozano on appeal. After an examination of the

record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On May 3, 2013 we advised

Lozano he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to

consider. We have not received any response.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Lozano’s attorney has

fully complied wit h the responsibilities of counsel and that there are no arguable issues.

( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];

People v

. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SEGAL, J. *

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J.

ZELON, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.