People v. Blackwood CA4/1

Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Blackwood CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081647

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS316960)

CHRISTOPHER B. BLACKWOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher B. Blackwood, in pro. per.; and Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following the denial of his motions to suppress evidence under Penal

Code1 section 1538.5, Christopher B. Blackwood pleaded guilty to transportation of a controlled substance; possession of a controlled substance

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

for sale (Health and Saf. Code, §§ 11379, subd. (a), 11378, & 11370.1, subd. (a)). He also admitted possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). Blackwood was sentenced to a term of five years in prison. Blackwood filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Blackwood the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded

with a lengthy submission which we will discuss later in this opinion.2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Blackwood’s motions to suppress evidence under section 1538.5. 2. Whether trial counsel provided Blackwood with effective assistance in the motions to suppress. In his own submission, Blackwood offers multiple reasons why he thinks the evidence should have been suppressed and why he believes he was not adequately represented by counsel.