People v. Lujan CA5

Filed 7/22/25 P. v. Lujan CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F089656 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-199354) v.

MICHAEL LANCE LUJAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County. Steven J. Howell, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Butte County Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michael Lance Lujan, in propria persona, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Michael Lance Lujan (appellant) pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to 364 days in jail. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant filed a supplemental letter brief. We will review his assertions and affirm. FACTS1 At approximately 10:38 p.m. on June 13, 2024, Deputies Miller and Houston of the Placer County Sheriff’s Department responded to a clothing store in Auburn on a report of suspicious circumstances. They spoke to a store employee, who reported that a man appeared to be taking clothing from the store. When the employee contacted the man, he cursed and walked out of the store without taking any property. The employee said the man was sitting inside of a particular vehicle parked in front of the store. The deputies approached the vehicle. The doors were closed but the windows were open, and they spoke to the occupants. A female was in the driver’s seat and appellant was in the front passenger seat. They did not appear to have been sleeping. Houston asked appellant if he was on parole and appellant said yes, and he was removed from the vehicle. Appellant was found in possession of a “[f]ixed-bladed, four-inch blade, with a black handle, appeared to be a kitchen-cutting knife,” and the tip was capable of being used as a stabbing instrument; the knife was in his pocket. Another knife was found in the pocket of the passenger door. Appellant was arrested. Appellant was advised of the warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and asked about the knives. Appellant said they were for his protection and he bought them earlier that day for approximately $1.25 each.