Romero

People v. Romero

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 211·43 Cal. App. 4th 440·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 26·96 Daily Journal DAR 2827·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1696
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1996C021099California2,421 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Carlos Martin Romero pleaded guilty to possession for sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.)

The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison and, as pertinent, imposed a $1,000 restitution fine.

Defendant appeals, contending (1) his motion to suppress was erroneously denied, and (2) the trial court erroneously imposed the restitution fine.

We shall affirm the judgment.

I

Motion to Suppress

When law enforcement officers searched defendant’s mobile home pursuant to a search warrant, they discovered 973.4 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant contends the affidavit in support of the warrant lacked probable cause and the officers could not rely on the warrant in good faith. The trial court concluded the officers could rely in good faith upon the warrant. We shall reach the same conclusion and therefore hold that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

As pertinent, the affidavit in support of the warrant provided as follows.

On January 6, 1995, James Seminoff, special agent for the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, purchased 130.7…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.