People v. Varga CA1/5

Filed 12/15/20 P. v. Varga CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157243 v. ATTILA ALEX VARGA, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 18CR001720) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Attila Alex Varga was convicted by jury of possession for sale of methamphetamine and possession of narcotic paraphernalia. At the preliminary hearing, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence, all of which was confiscated during the search of his bedroom at Capstone Court in Napa. On appeal, he does not dispute his factual guilt of the charges; instead, he challenges only the denial of the motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5).1 We affirm.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Appellant 1

did not renew his motion pursuant to section 1538.5, subdivision (i), after the filing of the information, nor did he challenge its denial by way of a motion to set aside the information pursuant to section 995. Respondent contends appellant is now precluded from raising the motion on appeal. In the alternative, appellant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to preserve the issue. We do not reach these issues, finding instead that the motion was properly denied.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 18, 2018, Napa Police Officer Thomas Keener conducted a probation search related to E. Dellagana, whose probation required her to submit to search of her residence. He consulted both the Napa Police Department and Napa County law enforcement record systems, which showed her current address to be Capstone Court. These record entries were both made in 2016. One was the result of an encounter with Dellagana at a hospital where her daughter was being treated as a crime victim. The reporting officer on that occasion asked, “[I]f we need to get ahold of you where can we find you?” The second was the result of the service of a search warrant at the Capstone address in December 2016. Dellagana was a subject of the warrant, was seen leaving the residence, and possessed keys to the residence. Keener was also aware that “within recent months [officers] had served a search warrant at that residence where Miss Dellagana was contacted.” Keener reviewed Dellagana’s probation order “to see that she was in fact on searchable probation.” He did not contact anyone at the probation department or the court to verify her current address. At the time Dellagana was placed on the relevant probation in early 2018, she gave an address of “Magnolia NSH,” which Keener testified was a residential treatment program associated with Napa State Hospital that was not a permanent residence.2 Appellant produced evidence that Dellagana held a month-to-month lease at the treatment program beginning in