P. v. Briones
Filed 3/8/07 P. v. Briones CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL PAUL BRIONES, Defendant and Appellant. | E040642 (Super.Ct.No. FCH7313) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Linda M. Wilde, Judge. Affirmed.
William H. Strohmeyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
An information was filed on June 14, 2005, by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County against the defendant. Defendant was charged under Health & Safety Code section 11378 with one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance. Defendant was also charged under Health & Safety Code section 11370.2 with enhancement penalties based on two prior Health & Safety Code section 11378 convictions.
On August 22, 2005, defendant pled guilty to a single charge of violating Health & Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) in the amended felony complaint. In exchange for the plea bargain, defendant was given three years of supervised probation with the usual terms and conditions of probation to apply.
Thereafter, defendant was subsequently arrested on a domestic violation charge and the preliminary hearing on that charge was held concurrently with his Vickers[1]hearing. The preliminary hearing was held on May 30, 2006, and the probation revocation (Vickers) hearing proceeded simultaneously with the preliminary hearing.
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the court announced that there was sufficient evidence to hold defendant to answer. The prosecutor then requested that the court find that defendant violated Vehicle Code section 2800.2 by evading the officers and that his probation be revoked. The court found that defendant had violated his grant of probation by his violation of the law condition and revoked defendants grant of probation.
On May 31, 2006, probation was formally revoked, and defendant was committed to state prison for the mid-term sentence of two years and awarded the appropriate custody credits.
Statement of facts
Case No. FCH07313
On May 25, 2005, Officer Bemowski of the Chino Police Department conducted a vehicle stop. Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The passenger in the vehicle was Mr. Beas. Officer Bemowski searched Beas and found on his person two methamphetamine pipes and a bag containing a crystalline substance he believed to be methamphetamine. Office Bemowski interviewed Beas, and Beas stated that the pipes and bag had been given to him by defendant when Officer Bemowski had first initiated the stop. Officer Bemowski searched the vehicle and found an inoperable digital scale. He also searched defendant. He found no drugs or paraphernalia on defendant. He then arrested both Beas and defendant.
At the police station, Bemowski gave Miranda[2]warnings to Beas. Beas waived his Miranda rights and gave a more extensive statement. Beas told Bemowski that defendant told Beas to conceal the items because he (defendant) was on parole and would receive a stiff sentence if caught with the items whereas Beas would likely only be charged with possession and probably receive probation.
The Subsequent Probation Violation
On April 30, 2006, defendant was allegedly involved in an altercation with his girlfriend, with whom he was living. The girlfriend had confronted defendant regarding an affair with another woman, and defendant became violent in response, kicking and striking her while they were in a vehicle. The physical altercation continued when they arrived at her home. When the investigating officer arrived at the victims residence, defendant had already fled.
A stop and hold warrant was issued for defendant. On May 10, 2006, defendant was observed driving a vehicle in Mira Loma by Officer Schweitzer of the Chino Police Department. Schweitzer, who was in a marked police vehicle, attempted a vehicle stop on defendants vehicle. Schweitzer activated his siren and vehicle lights, but defendant did not stop. Another police vehicle joined in the attempted stop. That vehicle had its siren and lights engaged as well. Defendant did not stop and led the police on a pursuit in which defendant drove through stop signs and red lights. At some point, a third police vehicle joined in the chase. That vehicle was unmarked. Defendant turned into a shopping center and came to a stop when his path was blocked by the unmarked police vehicle. Defendant was ordered out of his vehicle at gunpoint and taken into custody.
An unidentified citizen presented the police with a bindle that the citizen stated had been thrown from defendants vehicle. The bindle was found to contain methamphetamine.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
KING
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
[1]People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451.
