P. v. Samuel

Filed 2/13/07  P. v. Samuel CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Thomas  R. White, Judge.  Reversed.

            James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

            Appellant Stacy Ramon Samuel challenges his possession of marijuana for sale conviction on the ground the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion.  We  agree. 

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies stopped appellant's car because its license plate was not on record with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).  Appellant told the deputies he was on parole.  The deputies searched the car and found marijuana.

            Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of marijuana.  The information alleged he had three prior serious or violent felony convictions and had served five prison terms.  

            Appellant moved to suppress the marijuana.  After hearing, the trial court denied the motion.  Appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and pled nolo contendere to possession of marijuana for sale.  He also admitted a single prior serious or violent felony conviction.  The court sentenced appellant to six years in prison. 

DISCUSSION

            At the hearing on the suppression motion, Deputy Christopher McMaster testified that he and Deputy Trevor Banks were patrolling in Lancaster on November 18, 2004, when he saw a silver Buick Century he recognized from a prior encounter.  He recalled that on the prior encounter, the license plate on the Century was not on file with the DMV.  On November 18, he checked the Century's license plate on the mobile data terminal (MDT) in the squad car, and again found the DMV had no record of the plate.

            The deputies stopped the Century to investigate its registration and licensing.  Appellant was driving.  Co-defendant Larry Logan was a passenger.  A check of the car's vehicle identification number revealed it was assigned a different license plate that had expired six months earlier.  Appellant told Deputy Banks he was on parole.  Deputy McMaster confirmed appellant's status through the MDT.  The deputies then searched the Century based on appellant's parole status and their intent to impound the car because its proper license plate had expired six months earlier.

            Appellant testified the Century did not have a license plate the first time he encountered Deputy McMaster.  The plate that was on the car on November 18, 2004 was the one he received from the DMV.  He did not tell the deputy he was on parole until after he was handcuffed and seated in the back of the patrol car.  At that time, the deputies had already searched the car.

            The prosecutor argued the deputies were justified in stopping the car because the license plate was not recognized by the DMV.  The search was justified by appellant's parole status and as an inventory search prior to impounding the car.  Defense counsel argued the deputies' investigation exceeded the scope of reasonable inquiry warranted by the traffic stop.

            The trial court denied the suppression motion, stating â€