Court Opinion

ID: 9906036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 20:03:25.93964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:04.665103
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/30/23 P. v. Tucker CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B326412

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. NA119681)
           v.

 ROBERT TUCKER,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Debra A. Cole, Judge. Affirmed.
     A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                  ______________________
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION1
       On November 28, 2021, law enforcement officers observed
defendant Robert Tucker driving a vehicle with expired
registration tags and conducted a traffic stop. Officers recognized
Tucker from previous arrests and observed a pipe, used for
smoking, under his legs. Tucker was detained; a search of his
person revealed numerous baggies of narcotics, including cocaine
base and money. A vehicle search yielded empty baggies, a bottle
of pills, and a digital scale.
       A felony complaint filed on May 25, 2022 charged Tucker
with one count of sale/transportation/offering to sell a controlled
substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) The
complaint also alleged, among other things, that Tucker was
ineligible for probation because of convictions for eight prior
felonies within the meaning of Penal Code2 section 1203,
subdivision (e)(4), and that Tucker had been convicted of several
prior serious and/or violent felonies (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12,
subd. (b)).
       On August 23, 2022, the matter proceeded to a preliminary
hearing. Following a court offer in connection with an open plea,
Tucker pleaded no contest that same day to count 1, namely
sale/transportation/offering to sell a controlled substance. He
also pleaded no contest to charges in other open cases pending
against him. In accord with its pre-plea offer, the court

      1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it
“is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for
unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question
of interpretation or application.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Amin., § 8.1(1).)
      2 All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
sentenced Tucker to 16 months imprisonment, suspended that
sentence, and placed Tucker on formal probation for two years on
the condition that he attend and complete a residential drug
treatment program. The court also imposed various fines.
       Tucker then filed a notice of appeal, purportedly based on
the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5;
his notice of appeal further requested a certificate of probable
cause. Tucker’s request did not include the written statement
required by section 1237.5 for the issuance of a certificate of
probable cause—that portion of the form was left completely
blank. On March 17, 2023, this court issued an order limiting
Tucker’s appeal to issues that do not require a certificate of
probable cause.
       We appointed counsel to represent Tucker in this appeal.
After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief under People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues on appeal and
requesting that we independently review the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues. Tucker was notified that
he could submit a letter or brief stating any grounds for an
appeal, or contentions or arguments that he wished this court to
consider. Tucker did not submit any letter or brief.
       A defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest
without a certificate of probable cause may only challenge the
denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise grounds arising
after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea’s validity.
(§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v. Johnson
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676-677 & fn. 3.) Tucker’s counsel did not
make any motion to suppress evidence in this case, nor does the
record indicate his counsel had grounds for any such motion. Nor
does the record suggest any grounds arose after the entry of

                                 3
Tucker’s plea that affected its validity. Having examined the
entire record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and
that Tucker’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of
counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126; People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                          WEINGART, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             BENDIX, J.

                                  4