P. v. Garcia

Filed 2/22/07  P. v. Garcia CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,                                                                       H029792

                        Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Santa Clara County

                                                                                                 Superior Court

            v.                                                                                 No. FF511998)

SALVADOR MARTINEZ GARCIA, et al.,

                        Defendants and Appellants.

_____________________________________/

            Defendants Salvador Martinez Garcia (Garcia), Jossue Cabrera (Jossue), and Arturo Cabrera (Arturo) appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after they pleaded no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a)).  The trial court granted probation to defendants.  On appeal, defendants contend that the trial court erred by denying their motion to suppress evidence.  We find no error and affirm.

I.  Statement of Facts

            At about 11:00 p.m. on July 24, 2005, Sergeant Rick Rodriguez was on patrol at the corner of Murphy and East Dunne in Morgan Hill when he saw a van driving away from a fenced area that bordered the Farotte construction site.  The van was still partially on the unpaved area next to the site.  As the van pulled onto Murphy, it had its headlights on.  Since there had been several thefts at construction sites at nighttime, Rodriguez was patrolling this area to prevent this type of activity.  Rodriguez observed that there was no construction activity that night and no deliveries were being made.  He was also aware of a city ordinance that prohibits construction between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

            Rodriguez followed the van, activated his emergency lights, and then used his spotlight to illuminate the back of the van.  He saw a large quantity of plywood through the rear windows.  After continuing through the intersection, the van stopped.  Rodriguez told defendants to remain in the van until backup arrived.  After another officer arrived on the scene, Rodriguez asked defendants to exit the van, and they did.  None of them were able to produce identification.

            Rodriguez questioned defendants about the plywood and was given conflicting answers.  Arturo stated that he was working for â€