Filed 4/12/18 P. v. Richard CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EMILE PERNELL RICHARD, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151490

(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. VCR228375)


Following the denial of his motion to suppress (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), appellant Emile Pernell Richard, Jr. pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted to having suffered a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues and requesting we conduct an independent review of the entire record on appeal. Appellant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about December 16, 2016, appellant was arrested after police searched his car and found an unloaded 9-millimeter semi-automatic weapon in his car. On December 20, 2016, appellant was charged by felony complaint with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). It was further alleged that appellant had suffered three prior felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On December 27, 2016, appellant filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 to suppress his statements made before, during, or after his arrest, as well as the evidence seized from his car, including but not limited to the semi-automatic weapon. At the hearing on the suppression motion, which was calendared for the same day as the preliminary hearing, Officer Jesse Hicks of the Vallejo Police Department testified that he was on patrol on December 16, 2016, when he saw a blue Acura make a right-hand turn without signaling. Officer Hicks followed in his patrol car and saw that the Acura accelerated at a high rate of speed and then made another right-hand turn, again without signaling. Officer Hicks estimated that the car was traveling at over 50 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone. He further testified that, in addition to not using its turn signal, the car had also failed to stop at stop signs during at least two of its turns.
Officer Hicks saw the car pull into the driveway of a house on Sawyer Street. Officer Hicks then saw appellant get out of the car, while it was still in gear, and run into the house. The car kept rolling and ran into the garage of the home. Officer Hicks explained that he did not give chase because he saw that other people were in the home. Within less than a minute, however, a woman came out of the house and walked towards the patrol car. Appellant then came out of the house and walked toward Officer Hicks. Officer Hicks directed appellant to sit down and asked for his identification.
Officer Hicks and his partner ran appellant’s identification through dispatch and learned that appellant was on post-release community supervision (PRCS), meaning he was subject to a search. Officer Hicks’ partner searched the car and found an unloaded 9-millimeter, semi-automatic pistol.
The trial court denied the suppression motion and held appellant to answer on the felon in possession count, leaving the issue of the enhancements for the next hearing.
At a subsequent hearing, following a defense motion made pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), the court reduced one of appellant’s prior felonies to a misdemeanor, and the People filed an amended information, charging appellant with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and reducing the prior felony enhancements from three to two.
Thereafter, appellant signed and initialed a change of plea form, in which he acknowledged that he was giving up several constitutional rights. He further acknowledged that by entering a plea of no contest, the maximum punishment that the court could impose was four years in state prison. Appellant acknowledged that he was not eligible for probation; that he violated PRCS in a different case and PRCS in that case would be terminated. The plea waiver form stated that appellant had been promised two years, four months in state prison in exchange for his plea.
At the plea hearing, the court inquired as to the terms of the agreement set forth in the written plea waiver form, confirming that appellant wished to enter a no contest plea to a single count of felon in possession of a firearm and admit a prior prison term enhancement for an agreed disposition of two years, four months. Appellant confirmed that he had initialed and signed the plea waiver form, and also personally entered waivers of each of his constitutional rights. He then entered his no contest plea and admission of the prior.
At sentencing, the court indicated it would follow the agreement, and imposed the low term of one year, four months on the felon in possession of a firearm offense, and a consecutive one year term on the Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior, for a total term of imprisonment of two years, four months. Fines were imposed, credits calculated, and proceedings terminated in a different case.
II. DISCUSSION
Preliminarily, there appears to be some confusion regarding the scope of the appeal. Appellant’s initial notice of appeal purported to challenge the validity of his plea. However, he failed to include a request for a certificate for probable cause. In an amended notice of appeal, appellant requested and received a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. Yet, the amended notice of appeal reflects that the appeal is based on sentencing or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. Further still, the Wende brief filed by appellate counsel states that appellant seeks “an appeal following pleas [sic] of no contest, raising sentencing and suppression issues . . . .”
In any event, we have independently reviewed the entire record and find no arguable error exists. In light of appellant’s erratic driving and suspicious behavior, together with his PRCS search condition, there was ample basis for police to conduct an investigatory stop and search his vehicle. (See People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1082; People v. Jones (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266; Pen. Code, § 3453.)
The record establishes that there was a factual basis for appellant’s no contest plea, and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights in exchange for a sentence of two years, four months in state prison. The trial court approved the plea and sentenced appellant to the agreed upon term, which represented the low-term of 16 months for the felon in possession count, plus a one-year consecutive term for the admitted prison prior. The sentence imposed was authorized by law in all respects. At all times, appellant was represented by competent counsel who guarded his rights and interests.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


 




_________________________
REARDON, J.


We concur:


_________________________
STREETER, ACTING P. J.


_________________________
SCHULMAN, J.*


















*Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.




A151490 People v. Richard, Jr.