Court Opinion

ID: 9945940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 20:02:55.7834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:20.503985
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/28/24 P. v. Cabezas CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                B331803

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                           Super. Ct. No. YA106280)
         v.

ANTHONY CABEZAS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      THE COURT:
      Defendant and appellant Anthony Cabezas appeals his
judgment of conviction of felon in possession of a firearm. His
appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On December 21, 2023,
we sent defendant a letter notifying him of his counsel’s brief and
gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter
stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have
considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted
no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record and,
finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
       Defendant was charged with felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision
(a)(1) (count 1) and with felon in possession of a concealed firearm
in a vehicle in violation of section 25400, subdivision (a)(1) (count
2). At the time of the preliminary hearing he brought a motion to
suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5. Defense counsel
argued law enforcement officers exceeded the scope of the search
warrant executed at an illegally operated marijuana dispensary.
In addition to the interior of the dispensary and other areas, the
warrant commanded the search of “[a]ny and all vehicle(s) at the
location that can be determined to be directly involved in the
sale, purchase, or possession for sale of cannabis.” A Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department detective testified to being present
with others during the execution of the warrant. Defendant was
exiting the lobby of the dispensary when they entered. One of the
other detectives found a key fob on a small shelf in the lobby.
The fob located an SUV in the parking lot of the dispensary. The
SUV was searched and an unregistered, loaded .45-caliber
semiautomatic firearm was found behind a door panel.
Defendant’s driver’s license was also found in the vehicle. After
receiving and waiving Miranda advisements,1 defendant
admitted the SUV belonged to his mother and that he was at the
location to buy marijuana at the (apparently) legally registered
dispensary next door.
       Defense counsel argued the officers’ observations were
insufficient to support a finding that defendant was directly
involved in the sale or purchase of marijuana at the dispensary.
After hearing the argument of both counsel, the trial court denied

1     See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444-445.

                                 2
the motion to suppress evidence. After the trial court denied the
motion, defendant entered a plea agreement on May 3, 2023.
Pursuant to the agreement defendant pled no contest to count 1
and admitted prior felony convictions, count 2 was dismissed, and
the trial court placed him on formal probation for two years, with
several stated conditions. Defendant filed a timely notice of
appeal challenging his plea based upon the denial of his motion to
suppress. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
       We have examined the entire record and are satisfied
defendant’s appellate counsel has complied with his
responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude
defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende
procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and
effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in
this case. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

                        DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J.        ASHMANN-GERST, J.             CHAVEZ, J.

                                3