People v. Gaona CA5

Filed 4/23/14 P. v. Gaona CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Plaintiff and Respondent, F067226

v. (Super. Ct. No. MCR041104B)

ERNESTO GAONA, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Mitchell C. Rigby, Judge. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Charity S. Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.

After the trial court denied his motions to quash and traverse the search warrant, defendant Ernesto Gaona, Jr. pled no contest to various charges and allegations connected to his possession of methamphetamine for sale. The trial court sentenced him to three years in county jail, plus three years eight months of mandatory supervision. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motions to quash and traverse the search warrant because officers failed to adequately describe the property and intentionally omitted material facts in the supporting affidavit. We will affirm. BACKGROUND The Search Warrant Officers sought a warrant to search for evidence of gang methamphetamine distribution on several premises. Officer Esteves’s affidavit in support of the search warrant described defendant’s premises as “Ernesto Gaona’s Residence—422 South ‘A’ Street Madera, California.” The affidavit explained that an officer had observed defendant “going into the back gate behind 422 South ‘A’ Street in Madera” and officers had used “the GPS feature on [defendant’s] phone and found [him] to be at 422 S. ‘A’ Street in Madera.” Officers had determined that defendant was holding a cohort’s methamphetamine “at his apartment located at 422 S. ‘A’ Street, Madera, CA.” The affidavit included a photograph of 422 South “A” Street with the following description: “[A] peach with brown trim single story residence located on the west side of South ‘A’ Street. The front door is brown and faces east towards ‘A’ Street. The residence has a detached garage in the backyard. The numbers ‘422’ are displayed on the residence south of the front door next to the garage door.” Following the photographs and descriptions of all of the premises, the affidavit stated: “The search of all locations is to include all: Rooms, attics, basements, garages (attached or unattached) and all parts therein, the surrounding grounds, storage rooms or sheds, trash containers, outbuildings of any kind, and any combination safe or locked boxes associated with the above