NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J.

Hon Chung Lau was convicted in 2003 of the first degree murder of a roommate and was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life plus another 25 years to life for intentionally discharging a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d), statutory references are to the Penal Code.) We affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion, People v. Lau (Dec. 20, 2004, B171427).

In January 2011, Lau, acting in propria persona, filed a motion for return of property pursuant to sections 1538.5 and 1540. In a supporting declaration, Lau stated that his property had been seized in contravention of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and sections 1538.5 and 1540. He checked off boxes in his declaration listing each of the statutory bases upon which a motion for return of property may be made under section 1538.5, subdivision (a)(1): the seizure was without warrant and unreasonable; the warrant was insufficient on its face; there was no probable cause for issuance of the warrant; the method of execution of the warrant violated federal or state constitutional standards; the property taken was not the same as that described in the warrant, and the property was not subject to lawful detention. The property which was the subject of the motion was not described in any way, nor were the circumstances of the seizure of the property. Lau's points and authorities quoted section 1540 and asserted that it is the duty of the magistrate to see that property improperly taken be restored.

The trial court denied the motion because "defendant failed to set forth his request with sufficient specificity." Lau filed a timely appeal from denial of his order.

We appointed counsel to represent Lau on appeal. His counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On June 27, 2011, we advised Lau that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or argument which he wished us to consider. He has not done so.

A memorandum in support of a motion for return of evidence under section 1538.5 subdivision (a)(2) "`shall list the specific items of property or evidence sought to be returned . . . and shall set forth the factual basis and the legal authorities that demonstrate why the motion should be granted.'" (People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, 724.) The defendant must inform the court and the prosecution of the specific basis of the motion and make a prima facie showing in support of the assertion that the property was wrongfully seized. (People v. Smith (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 283, 296.) "`The degree of specificity that is appropriate will depend on the legal issue the defendant is raising and the surrounding circumstances. Defendants need only be specific enough to give the prosecution and the court reasonable notice. Defendants cannot, however, lay a trap for the prosecution by remaining completely silent until the appeal about issues the prosecution may have overlooked.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) Under section 1538.5, subdivision (m), defendant may appeal the denial of a motion for return of property "provided that at some stage of the proceedings prior to conviction he or she has moved for the return of property . . . ."

We have examined the entire record on this appeal. Lau's motion does not comply with the requirements of section 1538.5. He does not identify the property at issue nor does he explain the specific basis for the motion. We are not told whether Lau moved for return of the property at some point prior to his 2003 conviction to preserve the right to appellate review. This record does not reflect a cognizable issue on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

WILLHITE, J. and MANELLA, J., concurs.