People v. Saenz CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 8/19/26 P. v. Saenz CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B347655

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. XWESA100880)

GIRARD DAMIEN SAENZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Joseph J. Burghardt, Judge. Affirmed. Robert A. Werth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Girard Saenz appealed from the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.51, and his appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Based on our review of the record, we affirm.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

On April 20, 2019, as part of an investigation handled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a special agent, acting undercover, placed a bid on a semiautomatic weapon that was advertised by defendant on a bidding site for firearm sales. The following day, defendant notified the undercover agent that the agent was the winning bidder for the firearm. On April 24, 2019, the undercover agent spoke to defendant to discuss payment, paid for the weapon with an undercover credit card, and received a receipt from defendant by e-mail. Based on instructions he received from defendant in an earlier e-mail advising that the weapon could only be mailed to another federal firearms licensee, the undercover agent arranged for defendant to send the firearm to a federal firearm licensee in El Paso, Texas. The undercover agent had worked with the 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Because this appeal is taken from an order denying a motion to suppress for which a certificate of probable cause issued, the facts are taken from the testimony presented at the hearing on the suppression motion.

2 federal firearm licensee in the past and advised the licensee to expect a package, which was being sent to it as part of an ongoing ATF investigation. Defendant then notified the undercover agent that he had mailed the package and gave him a tracking number. A postal inspector with the United States Postal Inspection Service, at the request of an ATF special agent, “pull[ed] the package” bearing the tracking number provided by defendant. The inspector observed that the “‘to’” section listed the ATF agent’s undercover name, “care of” the federal firearm licensee in El Paso, Texas. Defendant’s name and address in Sherman Oaks appeared under the “‘from’” section. The postal inspector then provided the package to an ATF special agent, who opened the package and observed an assault weapon that matched the listing of the semi-automatic weapon on the bidding site. Under federal law, the weapon was considered a semi-automatic assault pistol. The surveillance video from the post office where the package had been shipped showed defendant walk into the office, give the postal worker the package, and pay with cash. On May 6, 2019, a Los Angeles Police Department detective applied for and obtained a search warrant for two residences associated with defendant based, in part, on the facts surrounding the seizure of the assault weapon purchased from defendant by the ATF undercover agent described above. Officers who executed the warrant on May 19, 2019, seized 1,092 items, many of which were firearms.

3 III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant in an information with 64 firearm- related counts, including possession of an assault weapon in violation of section 30605, subdivision (a); possession of a short- barreled shotgun in violation of section 33215; manufacture, distribution, or transport of an assault weapon in violation of section 30600, subdivision (a); and transfer of a handgun without a firearm license in violation of section 27545. On April 13, 2022, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and quash the warrant pursuant to section 1538.5. Defendant argued that the application for the search warrant lacked probable cause because it was based, in part, on items or evidence seized during a warrantless search of a parcel in transit in the U.S. mail in violation of defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. The prosecution opposed the motion. At the March 3, 2023, hearing on the motion, the trial court heard the testimony summarized above and, following argument, ruled that the inevitable discovery and consent to search exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. On June 24, 2025, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to three counts of possession of an assault weapon in violation of section 30600, subdivision (a). The trial court found defendant guilty on each count, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on two years of formal probation. That same day, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion, and the court issued a certificate of probable cause.

4 IV. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On April 21, 2026, counsel filed an opening brief which did not identify any arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. On April 23, 2026, we sent notice to defendant that his appointed counsel had filed an opening brief which did not raise any issues and that he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments that he wished us to consider. We also directed counsel to send the record of this appeal and a copy of counsel’s opening brief to defendant immediately. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that defendant’s appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

5 V. DISPOSITION The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

We concur:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

BAKER, J.