People v. Bernalramirez CA2/1

Filed 6/2/21 P. v. Bernalramirez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B309278

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA093574) v.

JOSE SIGFREDO BERNALRAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric P. Harmon, Judge. Dismissed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Defendant Jose Sigfredo Bernalramirez purports to appeal from the judgment after he pleaded no contest to a charge of carrying an unregistered concealed firearm. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. The basis of defendant’s appeal is the magistrate’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence at the preliminary hearing. As acknowledged by appellate counsel, defendant did not challenge the denial of the suppression motion before the superior court, and thus, under People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891 (Lilienthal), did not preserve the issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following factual summary is taken from the preliminary hearing. On the night of October 7, 2020, Los Angeles Police Officer John Acosta and his partner were patrolling a commercial and industrial area. The businesses had closed for the day and there was no pedestrian or vehicular traffic. That morning at roll call, Acosta had received from detectives a document indicating that burglaries and vehicle thefts had been happening in the general area. At around 10:40 p.m., Acosta saw defendant walk out from between two buildings. Acosta thought it was strange to see someone come out from between the buildings when everything was closed and there were no other pedestrians. Given the late hour and the crime rate in the area, Acosta thought defendant was a possible burglary suspect.