Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Haley

P. v. Haley

Filed 1/23/07 P. v. Haley CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

DONOVAN LAMONT HALEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

B188943

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. NA065397)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed.

A. William Bartz, Jr., 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, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and G. Tracey Letteau, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

Donovan Lamont Haley (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a negotiated plea of no contest to possessing a controlled substance, cocaine in the base form. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) Before entering his plea, defendant moved to suppress evidence, which was denied. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to an upper term of three years in state prison, to be served concurrently with the three-year prison term imposed in a pending unrelated probation violation matter, superior court case No. NA063527.[1]

Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his suppression motion. He argues that the officers had no probable cause to believe that he possessed the illicit narcotics and that the officers used unreasonable force to compel him to spit out the three rocks of base cocaine he was carrying in his mouth.

The contention lacks merit, and we shall affirm the judgment.

FACTS

I. The Evidence Adduced at the Penal Code Section 1538.5 Hearing

Viewing the evidence at the suppression motion in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 969), at about 6:37 p.m. on April 15, 2005, Long Beach Police Officer David Demasi was at Martin Luther King Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach. Officer Demasi was one of a team of officers investigating prostitution and prostitution-related crimes in that area. The officer was wearing civilian clothing and driving an unmarked Ford Expedition. Detective Sovanna Ly was inside the Expedition with Officer Demasi, but he was hiding behind a seat where a pedestrian or a passenger in the Expedition would not see him.

Officer Demasi saw a woman he suspected of being a prostitute and asked her whether she wanted a ride. The woman walked off. Defendant immediately approached Officer Demasi and asked what he wanted. Officer Demasi replied that he was â€

Description	Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a negotiated plea of no contest to possessing a controlled substance, cocaine in the base form. (Health and Saf. Code, S 11350, subd. (a).) Before entering his plea, defendant moved to suppress evidence, which was denied. (Pen. Code, S 1538.5.) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to an upper term of three years in state prison, to be served concurrently with the three year prison term imposed in a pending unrelated probation violation matter, superior court case No. NA063527. Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his suppression motion. He argues that the officers had no probable cause to believe that he possessed the illicit narcotics and that the officers used unreasonable force to compel him to spit out the three rocks of base cocaine he was carrying in his mouth. The contention lacks merit, and Court affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.