Filed 6/27/17 P. v. Cuevas-Verduzco CA4/3





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARMANDO CUEVAS-VERDUZCO,

Defendant and Appellant.


G053902

(Super. Ct. No. 15CF1290)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed.
Nancy S. Brandt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * 
Appellant Armando Cuevas-Verduzco was convicted by a jury of possession for sale and transportation for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378 & 11379). The court placed him on formal probation for three years, including a term of probation that he serve 160 days in the county jail, which time he had already accumulated before trial.
Cuevas-Verduzco appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised this court she could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) She filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and the points she had considered as possible appellate issues.
We contacted appellant and informed him he had the right to challenge his conviction on his own and raise issues he considered the basis for assertions of legal error. He did not choose to do so.
We have considered the points raised by counsel, and have scoured the record for other possible issues. We agree with appellate counsel there are no arguable issues on appeal and therefore affirm.
FACTS
Appellant was observed riding a bicycle with no hands. That, it turns out, is a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21205. Police pulled him over and asked for identification.
Noticing a lanyard hanging from his pocket, the officer asked appellant to consent to a search. Appellant consented and the search turned up a clear plastic baggie containing a white crystalline substance and two other bags – one containing small plastic baggies and one containing more white crystalline material. The officer recognized the white powder as methamphetamine and arrested appellant.
During the booking process, police found appellant’s phone and asked for permission to search it. Appellant gave consent and the officer found a text message in which someone texted appellant that she “wanted to get a teener.” He responded, “AIT. Have 20.” The officer testified that a “teener” is street jargon for 1/16 ounce of a drug and that “AIT. Have 20” would typically mean, “I might have that; it will cost $20.” All of this – the baggies, the meth, the text message – caused the officer to form the opinion the methamphetamine was possessed for sale.
DISCUSSION
The defense put on no evidence. There really was little that could be done against these facts. The arrest was videotaped and the conversations at the jail were audiotaped. But prior to trial, counsel brought a Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to try to suppress the evidence against appellant, and she also challenged the admissibility of his statements on the basis his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was not Mirandized in Spanish.
Those motions both lost at trial and they would fail on appeal. The arrest was constitutionally unobjectionable. Regardless of whether the police were really interested in appellant’s bicycle safety when they detained him, they had the right to do so for any objective violation of law (Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806), and after that the evidence collection was based on virtually incontrovertible consent. Defendant’s conversations with the police made it clear he spoke English, so an appellate challenge based on either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment was a non-starter.
The trial was basically a replay of the Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, and equally unassailable. There was nothing unusual about the sentencing or the sentence. In short, we can find nothing objectionable in appellant’s trial, sentencing, or
 
representation. We find ourselves in complete agreement with appellate counsel that there is no basis here for an appeal. The judgment is affirmed.





BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:



MOORE, J.



ARONSON, J.