People v. Valdez CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jun 22, 2015 No. B256852Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant cannot challenge the failure to preserve evidence on appeal after a guilty plea because such claims relate to guilt or innocence rather than the legality of the search, and it ordered the judgment modified to include mandatory sentencing fees and assessments.

Issues

Whether the failure to preserve dispatch records can be raised on appeal following a guilty plea.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to orally impose mandatory sentencing assessments and fees for each count.

Disposition. Affirmed as modified with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Courts of Appeal have repeatedly held that the failure to preserve evidence material to innocence or guilt cannot be raised on appeal from a guilty plea.”

“The loss or destruction of evidence does not implicate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Filed 6/22/15 P. v. Valdez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B256852

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA125399) v.

JOANN GALVAN VALDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lori A. Fournier, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. Tom Stanley for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, Joann Galvan Valdez, appeals after pleading no contest to transportation or sale of: heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a))1; marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)); and methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)). Defendant admitted the truth of a prior conviction allegation within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). She received a 10-year state prison sentence. We modify the oral pronouncement of judgment and direct that the abstract of judgment be amended. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Defendant’s Evidentiary Motions

Testimony at the preliminary and suppression hearings consistently established the following. Officer Brian Corletto initiated a traffic stop of defendant after she made an unsafe right turn without signaling. Officer Joie Tinajero arrived in a separate police car and proceeded to assist Officer Corletto. Both officers smelled marijuana in defendant’s Chevrolet Colorado. The officers searched defendant’s Chevrolet and discovered the heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine. Defendant’s theory of the case was that Officer Tinajero was in the police car with Officer Corletto when they initiated the traffic stop. Moreover, according to defendant, the stop was motivated not by a traffic violation but by Officer Tinajero’s personal vendetta against her. And this personal vendetta arose after defendant’s husband had a sexual affair with Officer Tinajero’s fiancé.

People v. Valdez CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B256852

JOANN GALVAN VALDEZ,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DISCUSSION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISPOSITION

TURNER, P.J.

MOSK, J. KRIEGLER, J.

AI Brief