P. v. Thompkins

Filed 5/30/06  P. v. Thompkins CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  James B. Jennings, Judge.  (Retired judge of the Santa Barbara Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)  Affirmed.

            Shawn R. Perez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kelley A. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            An information charged defendant and appellant Richard Levere Tompkins (defendant) with transportation, sale or furnishing methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code, section 11379, subdivision (a) (count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale under Health and Safety Code, section 11378 (count 2), and being under the influence of a controlled substance while in possession of a loaded and operable firearm under Health and Safety code section 11550, subdivision (e) (count 3).  The information also alleged that defendant was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of counts 1 and 2, in violation of Penal Code^[1] section 12022, subdivision (c).

Defendant pled guilty to count 1.  In exchange, the remaining charges and all enhancements were dismissed.  The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total term of two years. 

            On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because his arrest was unlawful.  We disagree and affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY^[2]

            On October 19, 2004, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Riverside County Sheriff's Detective Thomas Salisbury arrived at a convenience store in Quail Valley; he saw officers searching defendant incident to his arrest.  The search revealed a small plastic bag that contained approximately three and one-half grams of methamphetamine, over $600 in cash, and a nine-millimeter bullet.  A subsequent search of defendant's car produced a glass methamphetamine pipe, and a loaded nine-millimeter rifle. 

            Based on the quantity of methamphetamine possessed by defendant, Detective Salisbury opined that defendant possessed the methamphetamine for sale. 

II

DISCUSSION

            A.  The Trial Court Properly Denied Defendant's Motion to Suppress Based on the Lawful Arrest of Defendant

            Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his arrest was unlawful.  Defendant argues that his arrest was unlawful because (1) the arrest warrant was invalid because it had been recalled, and (2) there was no probable cause for his arrest independent of the warrant.

                        1.  Procedural History

            Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5.  In the motion, defendant argued that defendant's arrest â€