P. v. Arbo
Filed 8/1/06 P. v. Arbo CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DWAIN MIGUEL ARBO, Defendant and Appellant. |
C048982
(Super. Ct. Nos. 03F7570, 03F8504)
|
After his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5)[1] and Trombetta[2] motion were denied, defendant Dwain Miguel Arbo pled guilty to transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); case No. 03F7570) and vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); case No. 03F8504). He also admitted having sustained a prior serious felony conviction and a prior controlled substance conviction. (§ 1170.12; Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2.) On appeal, he contends his suppression and Trombetta motions in case No. 03F7570 were improperly denied. Defendant has not obtained a certificate of probable cause. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Case No. 03F7570
Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence on February 26, 2004, claiming his detention was unlawful. We view the facts in the light most favorable to Judge Steven Jahr's denial of defendant's motion. (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922.)
On September 27, 2003, Redding Police Officer Gary Meadows was in his patrol car when he noticed defendant driving a Chevrolet Camaro with a crack in the windshield and a missing driver's side rearview mirror. The officer followed defendant and activated his overhead lights, but defendant did not stop. After defendant made two right turns, the officer turned on his siren. As he did so, defendant turned around several times to look at the officer but continued driving. The officer saw defendant moving around inside the Camaro and defendant swerved over the center line several times. Defendant then threw four handfuls of white powder, which appeared to the officer to be illegal drugs, out the window.
Defendant finally stopped when the road came to a dead end. The officer ordered defendant out of the car and down on the ground where defendant was handcuffed and arrested. When defendant stood up, he had white powder all over his face and on his shirt. There was more white powder on the seat of the car. Defendant was not the registered owner of the Camaro.
The trial court found Officer Meadows's testimony credible and found probable cause for the stop based on a violation of Vehicle Code section 26709, subdivision (a), which requires vehicles to be equipped with two side mirrors, including one affixed to the left-hand side.
On November 22, 2004, defendant filed a motion to exclude evidence (Trombetta motion, supra 467 U.S. 479) based on the prosecution's failure to preserve the Camaro as â€
