P. v. Leanillo

Filed 2/22/07  P. v. Leanillo CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §  11378) and admitted enhancements for being personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, §12022, subd. (c)) and being on bail on an earlier offense (Pen. Code, §  12022.1); he was sentenced to two years in state prison.  On appeal he contends that the magistrate and trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress.  We find no error and affirm.

Background

            Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §  11378), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §  11379), possession of a substance containing methamphetamine while armed with a loaded operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, §  11370.1, subd. (a)), receipt of a firearm while subject to a protective order (Pen. Code, §  12021, subd. (g)(1), and possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, §  11364); enhancements for being armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, §  12022, subd. (c)) and committing an offense while on bail (Pen. Code, §  12022.1) were also alleged.  Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted the alleged enhancements; all other charges were dismissed.  He was ultimately sentenced to the midterm of two years in state prison for the possession of methamphetamine for sale charge, and the court struck the enhancements.  This timely appeal followed.

            Prior to the entry of his plea of no contest, at the preliminary hearing defendant made a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, which was renewed pursuant to Penal Code section 995.  Both motions were denied.^[1]

Discussion

            Evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing established that at about 10:00 a.m. on February 6, 2005, Daly City Police Officer Anthony Baroni was on routine patrol in the 100 block of Skyline Drive.  He observed a green Toyota Corolla start to pull out of a parking space.  The right side of the windshield and the rear left wing window were smashed, and the car's hubcaps were missing.  When Baroni drove past the vehicle, it began to pull back into the parking space it had been leaving.  His suspicions aroused, Officer Baroni made a U-turn and returned to the area, where he observed defendant and an unknown female standing across the street from the car.  Baroni ran a registration check on the vehicle and found that it was a rental car.

            Officer Baroni looked into the Corolla and saw a bunch of â€