P. v. Jones CA2/2

Filed 3/27/13 P. v. Jones CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B242987

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA078122) v.

WILLIAM JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:*

Defendant and appellant William Jones (defendant) appeals from his burglary conviction entered upon a guilty plea. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues and requesting a court review of the record. On October 1, 2012, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered, and we granted an extension of time to November 30, 2012. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter.

* BOREN, P.J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.

Defendant and codefendants, Kajuan Hall (Hall) and Maurice Newton (Newton), were charged with first degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459.1 The information alleged that on June 30, 2011, codefendants entered an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit a felony.2 At arraignment, defendant agreed to dates for pretrial conference and trial, and later brought a motion to dismiss the information pursuant to section 1381.5, failure to bring a federal prisoner to trial within 90 days. The trial court found a waiver and denied the motion. Defendant then filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, on the ground that the evidence against him was obtained during an unlawful search. Defendant relied on the recent decision in United States v. Jones (2012) __ U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 945], in which the United States Supreme Court held that the attachment of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device to a vehicle and the subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. At the hearing on the suppression motion, Detective Joseph Cabral of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department testified that defendant, Hall, and Newton were burglary suspects, and that he and other detectives had been conducting surveillance of their homes and automobiles for two days before placing GPS tracking devices on their cars. On June 30, 2011, after another week of surveillance, Detective Cabral checked the GPS monitor to confirm that Newton’s SUV was parked near his home, and took up his surveillance position there. When Newton left his house and got into his SUV, Detective Cabral followed him as he drove to a carwash, where he picked up defendant, and then to Hall’s residence to collect him. By then, Detective Cabral had notified other detectives who joined him in unmarked cars and an airship, as they all followed Newton’s SUV to one freeway after another, and ultimately into a residential neighborhood. While on the