People v. Bustillos CA3

Filed 9/3/21 P. v. Bustillos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090915

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18F886)

v.

TINA LOUISE BUSTILLOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Tina Louise Bustillos appeals from the judgment entered following her no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and the trial court’s subsequent grant of probation. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the methamphetamine discovered when parole agents picked up her purse to search it during a parole search of the bedroom defendant shared with her parolee husband. We will affirm the judgment, but direct correction of the minute order/order of probation as described post.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The complaint filed June 20, 2018, charged defendant with possession of methamphetamine for sale; she pleaded not guilty. She subsequently filed a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), arguing (as relevant here) that the search of her purse was illegal because it was outside the scope of the parole search. The People opposed the motion, arguing that the purse was located in an area of common control, defendant consented to the search of her purse, and the drugs were in plain view at the top of the open purse. On June 13, 2019, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion. Testimony at the hearing established that the parole agents conducted a search of parolee Marcel Denudt’s home, including the bedroom he shared with defendant, who was his wife. When agents arrived at the house, Denudt was not home and defendant was napping in the bedroom. Agents asked her to leave the house for the search and to leave her purse in the bedroom. She left the purse and waited outside in the yard. Agents Justin Benson and Matthew Mock searched the bedroom. As Benson looked under the bed, he saw a small safe/lockbox. Agent Steven Grace took the box outside and gave it to another agent to ask defendant about opening it. It undisputed that defendant ultimately told the agents the key to the lockbox was in her purse, which was located next to the bed. Defendant denied she consented to the agents’ retrieving the key from that purse, but admitted giving the agents permission to break open the box. Agent Grace testified defendant consented to the agents’ retrieval of the key from the purse. Grace returned to the bedroom and located the purse. When he picked it up, he noted a white substance in a plastic bag at the top of the purse. When asked whether he had to manipulate the purse to see the suspected methamphetamine, Grace replied, “No. I mean . . . it was just a grab, lifting up to try and identify the contents inside the purse, and right there on top was the suspected methamphetamine.” Also located in the shared bedroom during the search was a methamphetamine pipe.