People v. Smith CA3

Filed 10/23/13 P. v. Smith CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072890

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF121050A)

v.

JOSEPH LEE SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

An information charged defendant Joseph Lee Smith with possession for sale of a controlled substance in violation of section 11378 of the Health and Safety Code, with the special allegation that he had been armed with a firearm during the commission of a narcotics felony in violation of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) (count one).1 The information also alleged that defendant had previously committed two strikes, as described in sections 667, subdivision (d) and 1170.12, subdivision (b). The information further charged defendant with possession of a firearm by a felon with priors in violation

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (count two) and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person in violation of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1) (count three). The trial court denied defendant’s section 1538.5 motion to suppress and allowed the People to introduce evidence obtained by the police during the search of defendant’s bedroom. In a subsequent proceeding, defendant pled guilty to counts one and two. In exchange, count three was dismissed and the two strikes were stricken. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of seven years in state prison and ordered a combined $638 in restitution fines and court fees. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied the motion to suppress evidence. Disagreeing, we shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Undisputed Facts On July 23, 2012 at around 12:00 in the morning, Officers Anna Laffranchini and Ryan Rankin, along with four other officers of the Stockton Police Department, arrived at a residence at 1118 South Drake Avenue in the city of Stockton, California. The officers had received a lead that a suspect named Evan Ryan might be staying or living at that residence. After arriving at the residence, Laffranchini and Rankin approached the door of the residence. Charlee Ryan answered the door. Ryan was the mother of the suspect but the officers did not learn of this fact until after the search. Ryan was also defendant’s girlfriend. Defendant’s father was the owner of the residence. Laffranchini questioned Ryan about the suspect and asked if the officers could come inside the house and look for the suspect. Officer Laffranchini’s Testimony at the Suppression Hearing According to Laffranchini, after the officers requested permission to search the residence, Ryan informed the officers that she would have to ask defendant’s father because he was the owner of the residence. Upon Laffranchini and Rankin’s request, Ryan agreed to seek permission from defendant’s father. Ryan then closed the door.