People v. Wilson CA2/2

Filed 8/2/16 P. v. Wilson CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B269527

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA136190) v.

JAMES ANTHONY WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Laura R. Walton, Judge. Affirmed.

Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 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 Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

James Anthony Wilson (Wilson) was charged with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5; count 1), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2),1 bringing contraband into jail (§ 4573, subd. (a); count 3), carrying a loaded firearm while having suffered a prior conviction (§ 25850, subd. (a); count 4), and possessing a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1); count 5). The felony complaint alleged that Wilson committed all offenses while he was released on bail (§ 12022.1). As to count 1, it was further alleged that Wilson was personally armed with a firearm for purposes of section 12022, subdivision (c). With respect to counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, the felony complaint alleged that Wilson committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). After a magistrate denied Wilson’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained from a warrantless stop, detention and arrest, he pleaded guilty to all counts, and admitted all allegations. The trial court struck the section 667.5, subdivision (b) allegation in the interest of justice. Wilson was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of eight years. On appeal, Wilson contends that the magistrate erred when she denied his motion to suppress evidence. Alternatively, if the issue was waived because defense counsel did not renew the motion to suppress before the trial court, Wilson contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that Wilson waived his challenge to the denial of his suppression motion because defense counsel did not renew it before the trial court or move to dismiss under section 995, and we conclude that Wilson was not prejudiced by defense counsel’s performance. We affirm.