People v. Ortega CA2/5

Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Ortega CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B248257

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA067634) v.

ALBERT JUAN ORTEGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric C. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Albert Juan Ortega appeals from an order denying his claim to $3,350 seized by the police in connection with a crime he committed. He contends the trial court erred by ruling his claim, made in response to the prosecutor’s notice of administrative forfeiture, was untimely. He additionally argues the prosecution failed to make a prima facie showing that there was probable cause to believe the seized property was properly subject to forfeiture. We affirm the order denying the claim.

FACTS

On March 13, 2012, the prosecution served a Notice of Administrative Forfeiture (Notice) on appellant, who was in federal prison. According to the Notice, $3,350 in currency was seized on July 12, 2010, from appellant’s home in connection with violations of the Uniform Controlled Substance Act, specifically Health and Safety Code sections 11378 and 11379, subdivision (a). The Notice contained instructions for filing a Claim Opposing Forfeiture (Claim), including the requirement that (a) the Claim be filed with the superior court within 30 days, and (b) a file-stamped copy of the Claim be served on the District Attorney within 30 days after the court filing. On March 22, 2012, appellant mailed, via registered mail, a copy of his Claim to the superior court in Torrance. This form was stamped “Received” by the superior court on March 29, 2012. Appellant’s accompanying affidavit was also stamped “Received.” On May 8, 2012, and June 21, 2012, appellant sent a letters to the superior court inquiring about the status of his claim. The court’s minute order for August 1, 2012 states, “the court has received, reviewed and read [appellant’s] letter regarding notice of administrative forfeiture.” The court denied the request for return of the currency “as untimely.” A copy of this minute order was mailed to appellant on August 3, 2012. On August 13, 2012, and November 25, 2012, appellant sent letters to the superior court requesting reconsideration of the order denying his claim. On December 3, 2012, the court issued a minute order indicating: “Court has read and considered [appellant’s] letter re: notice of administrative forfeiture. [¶] Court order[s] as follows: [appellant’s]