People v. Ramirez CA1/3

Filed 7/15/15 P. v. Ramirez CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144538 v. AMY MAGELINE RAMIREZ, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-131705-6) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Amy Ramirez appeals from the judgment entered following her no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine and heroin. She contends the court erred in denying her motion to suppress made prior to entry of her plea. Her appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Counsel attests that defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief, but she has not exercised that right. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal and affirm the judgment. Factual and Procedural Background Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with one felony count of transporting heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), one felony count of transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), one felony count of possessing heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and one felony count of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)).

1

In advance of the preliminary hearing, defendant filed a motion to suppress pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The following evidence was presented at the preliminary hearing: The arresting officer testified that on the afternoon of March 31, 2013, he saw a man illegally pushing a shopping cart on the Delta de Anza Regional Trail behind the Tower Mart in Contra Costa County. The officer detained the man and determined that he was a parolee. The man told the officer that a friend was in the Tower Mart and would be joining him shortly. The officer then saw defendant walking towards him from the direction of the Tower Mart. Defendant approached the officer and asked what was going on. The officer told her that he was arresting the man on a parole hold. He immediately asked defendant her name and whether she was on probation or parole. Defendant told the officer her name and reported that she was on probation without a search clause. The officer testified that defendant had scabs and scars on her face, including “an open sore that was actually freshly bleeding on her ear,” all of which caused him to suspect intravenous drug use and led him to ask her to roll up her sleeves. When she rolled up her sleeve, he observed marks on her arm that he believed were consistent with intravenous drug use. In response to the officer’s continued questioning, defendant admitted that she used drugs, described herself as a drug addict, and reported that she had smoked methamphetamine that morning. The officer asked if defendant was in possession of any controlled substances, and defendant stated that she had a small amount of methamphetamine and heroin in her purse. This verbal exchange occurred within five minutes of their initial encounter. The officer searched defendant’s purse and found small amounts of substances the defense stipulated for purposes of the preliminary hearing and suppression hearing were methamphetamine and heroin. In the officer’s opinion, defendant possessed a useable amount of both controlled substances. The court denied the motion to suppress and held defendant to answer on the two possession offenses. The magistrate explained, “While I think it’s a close call, certainly the initial encounter was consensual and that the defendant walked up to the police, or to