California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 2016 No. E063603Unpublished
Filed 1/7/16 P. v. Cleland CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063603
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1402418)
KENNETH EUGENE CLELAND, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Debra Harris,
Judge. Affirmed.
Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Kenneth Eugene Cleland
pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1),
1
count 2)1 and admitted that he had one prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)
& 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In accordance with the plea agreement, a trial court sentenced him
to two years on count 2, doubled pursuant to the strike conviction, for a total term of four
years in state prison.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
count 5). The complaint also alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction (Pen.
Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and had served two prior prison
terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On July 17, 2014, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence pursuant to
section 1538.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A)(i). The People filed an opposition to the motion.
The court held the preliminary hearing and motion to suppress hearing concurrently. The
court denied the motion and held defendant to answer to all counts and allegations.
On August 4, 2014, the People filed an information, which included the same
counts and allegations as the felony complaint, except for count 5, which was left off.
Defendant pled not guilty and denied all allegations. He then filed a renewed motion to
suppress evidence. The court again denied the motion.
3
On May 15, 2015, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to count 2
and admitted the prior strike. In accordance with the agreement, the court sentenced him
to a total of four years in state prison and dismissed the remaining counts and allegations.
Defendant filed an amended notice of appeal on May 27, 2015, based on the
sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea, as well as the denial of a motion to
suppress.
ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and a brief statement of the facts, and identifying two potential arguable issues:
(1) whether the police violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unlawful searches and seizures when it detained him for having hand-to-hand contact
with a known probationer; and (2) whether the police violated his Fourth Amendment
rights when it conducted a warrantless seizure of a container in his pocket.
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent
review of the record and find no arguable issues.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
We concur:
KING J.
MILLER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues.
Issues
Whether the police violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him for hand-to-hand contact with a known probationer.
Whether the police violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless seizure of a container in his pocket.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”