Opinion
B233590
11-21-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MISAEL RUBIO, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA375475)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judith L. Champagne, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
Los Angeles police officers found cocaine, cocaine base, and methamphetamine in Misael Rubio's car. He was charged with five counts for possessing and transporting those drugs for sale. After his motion to suppress the evidence of those drugs was denied, he pleaded no contest to one count of possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). When a prior prison term allegation was added in, Rubio was sentenced to four years in state prison. The remaining charges were dismissed. He also stipulated to a civil forfeiture of $2,000 that was found in his possession.
The facts surrounding Rubio's arrest come from the hearing on his unsuccessful motion to suppress the evidence. In the late afternoon of August 31, 2010, Los Angeles Police Officer Shroshi Uehara was following a woman who an anonymous tipster said was a drug dealer. Uehara saw the woman meet up with a man in a downtown-area parking lot. The two spoke for a while, then the woman made some calls from her mobile phone. The woman and the man got in separate cars and drove to another location. After arriving at the new location, the pair spoke to each other again, and the woman made several brief phone calls. The pair then drove to yet another location. Once there, the woman got out of her car. Uehara saw that she had cash in one hand. She then got into the front passenger seat of another car. When she left that car a minute later, Uehara saw that the cash was gone, but her left hand was closed into a fist. The woman got back in her car and drove off.
Based on his training and experience, combined with the tip he had received about the woman, Uehara believed he had just witnessed a drug sales transaction. He and other officers approached the driver of the car that the woman had just left - appellant Misael Rubio. The officers identified themselves, told Rubio they were conducting a narcotics investigation, and asked Rubio if they could search his car. Rubio said they could. The officers ran a check on Rubio and learned he was a deported felon who was subject to arrest as a criminal alien. A search of Rubio's car turned up containers with several hundred off-white solids containing cocaine base, 30 bindles of cocaine, and 15 crystals resembling methamphetamine.
Rubio testified that the woman who entered his car had no money and that he agreed to provide her with $80 worth of cocaine on credit because he was having sex with her. He said that the police did not ask for permission to search his car and did not run a background check on him before they performed their search.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, but did not state the grounds for its order. Rubio filed a notice of appeal from that order. On September 8, 2011, his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that he had reviewed the record and had sent Rubio a letter advising him that such a brief would be filed and that he could file a supplemental brief if he chose to. That same day, this court sent Rubio a letter advising him that a Wende brief had been filed and that he had 30 days to submit a brief raising any issues he wanted us to consider. He did not file a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN, J. WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
FLIER, J.