People v. Khaleghi CA2/8

Filed 2/2/15 P. v. Khaleghi CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B254145

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA390776) v.

KAVEH KHALEGHI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Garcia, Judge. Affirmed.

Doreen B. Boxer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________

Kaveh Khaleghi pled no contest to one count of grand theft pursuant to Penal Code1 section 487, subdivision (a) after his motion to suppress was denied. Khaleghi’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After being notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, Khaleghi submitted a 45-page document, in which he contends the denial of his suppression motion was reversible error because the three search warrants leading to the seizure of the evidence incriminating him were impermissibly overbroad. Having found no arguable issues exist and finding no merit to Khaleghi’s contentions, we affirm the judgment. FACTS In 2011, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office began an investigation which ultimately led to multiple counts of theft, embezzlement, and money laundering against Khaleghi for perpetrating a fraudulent scheme against foreign companies through his business, ComputerWide. One of Khaleghi’s victims was Georgia Solomou, who owned MedIT, a company operating in the country of Cyprus. In an interview with investigator Michael Deck on February 18, 2011, Solomou reported she wired over $85,000 to ComputerWide for the purchase of computer equipment in 2010, which she never received. In a similar transaction, a German company, Timlic, wired over $200,000 to ComputerWide in approximately April 2010 for the purchase of networking equipment, which it never received. On March 9, 2011, Deck submitted an affidavit for a search warrant of certain IP addresses he believed would uncover the individuals controlling ComputerWide and their physical address. Deck explained that “[a]n IP address is a unique identifier much like a residential address for mail.” One particular IP address 68.183.173.229 was maintained by an internet service provider known as DSL Extreme, which Deck believed kept records of subscriber information for that IP address. IP address 68.183.173.229 appeared on the email communications ComputerWide exchanged with Solomou. Two