California Court of Appeal Nov 12, 2015 No. D067402Unpublished
Filed 11/12/15 P. v. Kahananui CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D067402
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE340021)
LEINA KAHANANUI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B.
Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.
Alissa Bjerkhoel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Leina Kahananui appeals from the judgment following her guilty plea to
possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and the denial of
her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief
presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error
in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Kahananui has not
responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently
reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
Investigating a theft of a wallet that occurred at a casino, a sheriff's deputy
obtained information that the suspect left the casino with Kahananui in her vehicle. The
deputy arrived at Kahananui's residence and spoke with Kahananui's grandmother, who
lived in the front duplex at the property. The grandmother stated that Kahananui and her
boyfriend lived in the back duplex. Kahananui arrived and spoke with the deputy. As
requested by the deputy, Kahananui retrieved her identification from inside the back
portion of the duplex, where she resided, and brought out her boyfriend, Jason Banks,
whom the deputy erroneously believed might be the suspect who took the wallet.
The deputy then told Kahananui that he was looking for the person who was with
her at the casino and took a wallet. Kahananui yelled and became hysterical. According
to the deputy, Kahananui stated, "Hell, no. I am not taking any part in that. I am going to
kill him. He is in there. You can go get him," pointing inside her residence. Deputies
detained Kahananui and Banks in the patrol car and searched the residence for the
suspect, whom they found in a shed. In the course of the search for the suspect, deputies
saw evidence of drugs under a bed. The deputies performed a records check on
2
Kahananui and Banks, and found out that Banks had a valid Fourth Amendment waiver,
allowing them to conduct a warrantless search of his residence. The deputies then
searched the residence more fully and found 130 grams of marijuana and 74 grams of
methamphetamine, along with narcotic pills and other drug paraphernalia.
After a preliminary examination in which the court found insufficient evidence to
proceed against Kahananui on charges related to the narcotic pills, an information was
filed alleging in count 1 that Kahananui possessed methamphetamine for sale (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11378) and in count 2 that Kahananui possessed marijuana for sale (id.,
§ 11359).
On August 22, 2014, the trial court heard a motion by Kahananui to suppress the
evidence obtained as a result of the search of her residence on the ground that the search
was unconstitutional. Kahananui testified at the suppression hearing, claiming that Banks
lived in the front portion of the duplex with her grandmother, rather than in the back
portion of the duplex with her, and that she did not tell the deputy to search for the
suspect in the residence, as he claimed, but instead, she told the deputy that she would go
into the residence and get the suspect. The trial court denied the suppression motion.
On August 25, 2014, Kahananui pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine for
sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), with the People agreeing to dismiss the count
alleging Kahananui possessed marijuana for sale and also to dismiss a different
misdemeanor case. On the guilty plea form, Kahananui agreed to give up her right to
appeal the denial of her suppression motion.
3
On November 25, 2014, Kahananui filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea on
the ground that she did not understand that she was giving up her right to appeal the
denial of her suppression motion. On December 16, 2014, the trial court denied the
motion to withdraw the guilty plea, finding that Kahananui knowingly, voluntarily and
intelligently waived her rights.
At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended the imposition of
sentence and placed Kahananui on three years' formal probation. As relevant here, the
conditions of probation included a condition to "[p]articipate and comply with any
assessment program if directed by the [Probation Officer]" and to "[h]ave no contact with
the co-defendant(s)[:] Bank[s], Jason."
Kahananui filed a notice of appeal along with a request for a certificate of
probable cause, which the trial court issued.
II
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this
court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as possible but not arguable
issues: (1) the validity of Kahananui's waiver of her right to appeal the denial of her
motion to suppress; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying
Kahananui's motion to withdraw her guilty plea; (3) whether the trial court erred in
denying Kahananui's motion to suppress evidence, including several subissues regarding
4
the merits of that motion; (4) whether Kahananui's guilty plea was constitutionally valid;
(5) whether there was a factual basis for Kahananui's guilty plea; and (6) whether the trial
court erred in imposing the conditions of probation requiring Kahananui to "[p]articipate
and comply with any assessment program if directed by the [Probation Officer]" and to
"[h]ave no contact with the co-defendant(s)[:] Bank[s], Jason."
After we received counsel's brief, we gave Kahananui an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief, but Kahananui did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, disclosed no reasonably
arguable appellate issue. Kahananui has been adequately represented by counsel on this
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
PRAGER, J.*
* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction following a guilty plea, finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Validity of the waiver of the right to appeal the suppression motion denial
Abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea
Constitutionality of the search and denial of the suppression motion
Validity of the guilty plea and existence of a factual basis
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.”
“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”