P. v. Garcia
Filed 9/24/07 P. v. Garcia CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IVAN GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. | B193987 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA83909) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
William Chidsey, Jr., and Allen J. Webster, Jr., Judges. Affirmed.
Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____________________________
Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, 1538.5), Ivan Garcia entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11351, subd. (a)). He timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
On April 20, 2006, Garcia was charged by information with selling cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a), count one), possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5, count two) and possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11351, subd. (a), count three). The information further alleged as to all counts Garcia had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served one separate prison term for a felony (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
On May 18, 2006, Garcia filed a motion for discovery under Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. On May 25, 2006, the trial court conducted an in camera hearing after it determined Garcia had demonstrated good cause to discover information in the arresting officers personnel and administrative records pertaining to fabrication of police reports arising from traffic stops. The trial court found none of the incidents reviewed was relevant to Garicas case and, therefore, disclosure of material from the officers personnel files was not appropriate. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1219.)
On July 12, 2006, the trial court heard Garicas motion to suppress evidence. The hearing evidence established on March 20, 2006 Officers Garrido and Longan of the Los Angeles Police Department were on routine patrol, when they noticed Garcia was driving his truck without wearing his seatbelt. They pulled in behind to initiate a traffic stop when Garcia abruptly changed lanes and turned into a side street. Officer Garrido activated the patrol cars overhead lights, and Garcia stopped. As Officer Garrido approached the drivers side of the truck, he saw Garcia move or grab something from the center console area. Officer Garrido had to order Garcia repeatedly to display his hands before Garcia finally complied. When Officer Garrido reached the drivers side window, he requested Garcias drivers license. Garcia replied that he did not have a license. Officer Garrido ran the license plate of the truck and discovered that Garcia was not the registered owner. The officer also smelled a strong odor of marijuana and asked Garcia whether he had been smoking marijuana. Garcia answered that he had smoked marijuana earlier in the day. Officer Garrido ordered Garcia out of the truck.
Officer Longan searched the center console area of the truck and recovered a scale and a baggie containing what appeared to be rock cocaine. Garcia was placed under arrest, and the truck was impounded. A passenger with Garcia was detained and later released.
Garcias brother, Raymond Herrera, testified in Garicas defense that he and Garcia were wearing seatbelts when the officers pulled them over. One officer approached the drivers side and had Garcia place his hands on the steering wheel, while the other officer told Herrera to roll down the window on the passengers side. Garcia and Herrera complied with the officers demands. The officers ordered them out of the truck and searched them, before placing them in the patrol car and turning their attention to the truck. According to Herrera, the officers searched the truck for one-half hour. Herrera testified that although Garcia was smoking marijuana in the truck earlier that day, his ability to drive was not affected.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding Officer Garridos testimony credible and the search was not the product of an unlawful stop or detention. Garcia pleaded no contest to count three, possession for sale of cocaine, and admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Garcia was sentenced as a second strike offender to four years in state prison (double the lower term of two years). Garcia received presentence custody credit of 174 days (116 actual days and 58 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Garcia to pay a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. The remaining charges and special allegations were dismissed on the Peoples motion.
We appointed counsel to represent Garcia on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised as well as a request to augment the record on appeal, which was granted. On May 15, 2007, we granted the request to augment the record on appeal and advised Garcia that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record, including the transcript of the in camera proceedings, and are satisfied Garcias attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ZELON, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
WOODS, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
