People v. Vanleer CA3

Filed 3/20/15 P. v. Vanleer CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C074243

v. (Super. Ct. No. CM034214)

KARLENE VANLEER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Karlene Vanleer appeals from the trial court’s denial of her request to reinstate drug diversion under Penal Code section 1000.1 She claims the court relied on evidence from a search of her car that was obtained in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights and the evidence should have been suppressed. We conclude the car search was unlawful because defendant’s section 1000 status did not include a

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

requirement that she submit to warrantless searches. However, even though the search was unlawful, the evidence from the car search could be considered in the drug diversion revocation hearing. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request to reinstate drug diversion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The 2011 Case2 On March 17, 2011, in Paradise, defendant was found to be in possession of two oxycodone pills. Each pill contained a useable amount. Defendant did not have a prescription to possess or use oxycodone. In April 2011, in case No. CM034214 (the 2011 case), defendant pled guilty to felony possession of oxycodone. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) In exchange, two related counts were dismissed. Defendant was granted deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) and drug diversion under section 1000. B. The 2012 Case3 On April 7, 2012, Paradise Police Officer Robert Wright was on patrol with a canine partner. He saw a four-door car traveling westbound at an intersection. One of the car’s brake lamps was not operational. Officer Wright stopped the car and contacted the driver, whom he identified in court as defendant.

2 The 2011 matter was resolved by plea and the facts of that offense are not at issue in this appeal. Accordingly, our statement of facts is taken from the prosecutor’s statement of the factual basis for the plea. 3 Our statement of facts for the 2012 matter is taken from the suppression hearing.