Filed 1/23/18 P. v. Guillen CA5




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALLEN DANNY GUILLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074362

(Super. Ct. No. CRM034564)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda and Jeanne Schechter, Judges.†
Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
After denial of his motion to suppress, appellant Allen Danny Guillen pled no contest to a felony charge of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, for sale. In exchange, other charges were dismissed. Guillen filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
A five-count complaint was filed against Guillen on July 25, 2014. The complaint charged Guillen with three felonies, transportation of a controlled substance for sale, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and possession of a controlled substance. In addition, the complaint alleged misdemeanor counts of possession of a smoking device and unlawfully driving a vehicle without a license.
On February 25, 2015, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress.
At the August 3, 2015, preliminary examination, Sergeant Luis Robert Solis of the Merced Police Department testified that around 11:52 p.m. on April 16, 2014, he made contact with a vehicle driven by Guillen. Guillen did not have a license, so Solis told him to park the car and have a licensed driver retrieve it.
Guillen told Solis he was on his way to pick up a female named Erica Urrutia. Solis testified, “that kind of drew my suspicion” because Urrutia had recently been arrested on several charges. Solis asked to search the vehicle and Guillen consented. During the search, Solis found a total of 16.66 grams of methamphetamine in the vehicle, a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine, and $612 in cash. Solis denied that the methamphetamine or pipe belonged to him.
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the trial court found there was sufficient evidence to hold Guillen to answer to the charges.
On August 3, 2015, the trial court deemed the possession of a controlled substance count to be a misdemeanor, pursuant to Proposition 47. A hearing on the suppression motion was deferred.
A second motion to suppress was filed November 25, 2015. The motion asserted that the traffic stop of Guillen was unlawful; the detention was unduly prolonged; and the search and seizure were illegal.
A hearing on the motion to suppress was held on February 26, 2016. Solis testified that he was at a stop light at approximately 11:52 p.m. on April 16, 2014. Solis noticed a vehicle at the intersection whose “taillights [were] off” and it looked as though the headlights might not be illuminated. Solis testified it was a violation of the Vehicle Code not to have “tail lamps illuminated during the hours of darkness.” Solis decided to effect a traffic stop. Solis saw the lights of the vehicle come on after about a block of travel.
The driver of the vehicle was Guillen. Guillen told Solis he had initially forgotten to turn on his lights. When asked for his license, Guillen told Solis he did not have a current license. Solis was going to tell Guillen to just park the vehicle and have a licensed driver retrieve it, when Guillen mentioned he was on his way to pick up Erica Urrutia. This aroused suspicion, because Urrutia had been arrested the night before for mail theft and identity theft.
Solis asked Guillen if he had anything illegal in the vehicle; Guillen said, “No.” Solis asked if he could check or search the vehicle; Guillen responded, “Go ahead” and stepped out of the vehicle. Solis did not draw a weapon, issue an order, or handcuff Guillen prior to making the request to search the vehicle.
Solis conducted a patdown search of Guillen and “didn’t find anything.” Solis then searched the vehicle, where he found two baggies with a total of 16.66 grams of methamphetamine, a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine, EBT cards with ten different names on them, and $612 in cash.
Guillen claimed it was an illegal stop because the vehicle had automatic daylight running lights. He argued the stop was illegal and unduly prolonged. Guillen testified at the suppression hearing. He did not challenge Solis’s testimony that he consented to a search of the vehicle.
The trial court found that there was a valid basis for the stop; it appeared to Solis that the taillights were out and Guillen admitted that he had initially failed to turn on the lights. The trial court also found that the stop was not prolonged and “there was consent” for the search of the vehicle. The motion to suppress was denied.
On August 9, 2016, Guillen sought to discharge appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. At the Marsden hearing, Guillen was seeking to discharge his defense attorney because he had lost the motion to suppress; did not file a writ; and “wanted [him] to stand up and yell for me.”
The trial court denied the Marsden motion, stating defense counsel had not done anything wrong. Guillen was simply unhappy with the outcome of the suppression motion. Defense counsel was experienced, had prepared for trial; was “very able and competent” and had “a fair degree of success in front of juries.”
Subsequently, on August 9, 2016, Guillen entered into a plea agreement where he pled no contest to a felony count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. In exchange, other counts were dismissed. On an unrelated charge, Guillen pled no contest to a misdemeanor count of petty theft.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Guillen was to be sentenced to 120 days in the county jail and formal probation. The sentence was to be stayed pending the outcome of his appeal.
Guillen filed a notice of appeal on September 7, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 on July 18, 2017. On July 19, 2017, this court issued its letter to Guillen inviting him to submit a supplemental brief. No supplemental brief was filed.
“The standard of review on a motion to suppress is well established. The appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the ruling and defers to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, when supported by substantial evidence. But in determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the appellate court exercises its independent judgment. [Citations.] Appellate review is confined to the correctness or incorrectness of the trial court’s ruling, not the reasons for its ruling.” (People v. Superior Court (Chapman) (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011.)
“As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” (Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 810.) Here, Solis testified to specific facts that justified a traffic stop: he had observed the vehicle travelling at night with no illuminated taillights, in violation of the Vehicle Code.
The traffic stop was not prolonged in order to search the vehicle. Solis testified the search of the vehicle was conducted pursuant to consent. Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement. (People v. Harris (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 671, 685.)
After an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The denial of the motion to suppress and judgment are affirmed.