P. v. Perry
Filed 4/12/06 P. v. Perry CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMY LARRY PERRY, Defendant and Appellant. | A111741 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-040155-4 and 5-050165-0) |
Defendant Jimmy Larry Perry appeals from a judgment following pleas of no contest to two counts of possession of cocaine. His appeal is based on the trial court's denial of motions to suppress in two cases which were consolidated. Defendant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no such issues and affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
The trial court consolidated Contra Costa Superior Court case numbers 5-040155-4 and 5-050165-0.
The information in case number 5-040155-4, alleged that Perry possessed cocaine on November 2, 2003 (Health & Saf. Code, section 11350, subd. (a)). The charge arose out of a traffic stop by Antioch Police Officer Tony DeTomasi. Officer DeTomasi stopped Perry after observing him driving a car with expired registration tags. Perry failed to provide a driver's license and the officer learned from a computer check that Perry's license had been suspended. Officer DeTomasi decided to place Perry under arrest and searched Perry incident to the arrest. He found on Perry's person a pill bottle containing two white rocks wrapped in plastic which the officer believed to be a controlled substance. One of the two rocks was tested and determined to contain cocaine.
The information in case number 5-050165-0, alleged that Perry possessed cocaine on November 10, 2003 (Health & Saf. Code, section 11350, subd. (a)) and that he committed two driving offenses. The charges arose out of a traffic stop by Antioch Police Officer Desmond Bittner. Officer Bittner stopped Perry after observing him drive through a red light. A computer check showed that the registration on the car Perry was driving had expired. The tags affixed to the car's license plate were current, which led the officer to believe the tags were false. Perry told Officer Bittner that he did not have a driver's license; the officer confirmed that Perry was unlicensed through a call to the dispatcher. Officer Bittner decided to place Perry under arrest and searched Perry incident to the arrest. He found on Perry's person a blue plastic container with three white rocks wrapped in plastic which the officer believed to be a controlled substance. The officer also found a glass pipe, which he believed was used for smoking controlled substances. One of the rocks was tested and determined to contain cocaine.
Perry moved to suppress the fruits of the searches in case numbers 5-040155-4 and 5-050165-0. The trial court denied both motions after hearing the testimony of the two officers and argument from counsel. Perry pled no contest to one count of possession of cocaine in each case. The trial court found Perry eligible under Proposition 36, suspended imposition of sentence, placed Perry on formal probation for three years, and directed him to complete a substance abuse program.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal indicating that the appeal was based on denial of the motions to suppress.
Discussion
The trial court did not err in denying the motions to suppress. The testimony of Officers DeTomasi and Bittner showed probable cause to believe that Perry violated at least one provision of the Vehicle Code on each of the dates in question. That is all that was required to justify a custodial arrest and search incident to that arrest. (Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001) 532 U.S. 318, 354; People v. Monroe (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1194, following United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218, 234-235; see also People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, 607.)
We also note that there was no error in entry of the pleas or sentencing. Perry was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. Before Perry entered his pleas, the trial court confirmed that he had read the plea form and had an opportunity to discuss the form fully with counsel. The plea form detailed Perry's constitutional rights and explained the direct consequences of the pleas. Defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the pleas. The three-year probation term imposed by the trial court was the disposition anticipated in the plea form.
There are no legal issues that require further briefing. We find no arguable issues on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
GEMELLO, J.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
SIMONS, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Attorneys.
