Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, No. BF116595A, Richard J. Oberholzer, Judge.
Hayes H. Gable III, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Hill, J.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 14, 2006, an information filed in Kern Superior Court charged appellant, Henry Sanchez, with two felonies: transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count one) and possession of methamphetamine for purpose of sale (§ 11378, subd. (a); count two). In addition, with respect to both counts, the information alleged that Sanchez had suffered four prison priors within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and that he had suffered two prior convictions relating to controlled substances within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (a).
Later statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.
On December 15, 2006, Sanchez was arraigned on the information and entered not guilty pleas to both counts and denied all allegations.
On February 20, 2007, Sanchez filed a motion to suppress the evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. On April 11, 2007, the court held the hearing on the motion to suppress and denied the motion on all grounds.
Sanchez previously had moved to suppress the evidence underlying the charges in this case in a prior case, Kern Superior Court case number BF114727A. The previous motion, heard and decided by the Honorable J. Augustus Accurso, was granted, the evidence was suppressed, and the People ultimately moved to dismiss that case. Thereafter, the People re-filed charges in the instant case based on the same evidence.
As Judge Accurso “recused himself from further assignment in this case based on what he [perceived] to be a conflict,” he was deemed unavailable under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (p) and the Honorable David Allen was assigned to hear the second motion to suppress.
On April 13, 2007, Sanchez entered a no contest plea to count one of the information and admitted that he had suffered a prior conviction under section 11370.2, a violation of section 11378.
On May 10, 2007, Sanchez was sentenced to the low term of two years on count one and to a consecutive term of three years for the section 11370.2 enhancement, for an aggregate sentence of five years in state prison.
Sanchez filed a timely notice of appeal on May 10, 2007.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 21, 2006 at around 9:10 p.m., officers of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) team conducting a surveillance operation as part of a wiretap investigation targeting Jesus Alvarez arrived at the Tacos Mexicos restaurant in Bakersfield. One of the HIDTA officers, Charlie Flores, observed Alvarez’s vehicle enter the restaurant parking lot and park. Some time later he saw a white Toyota RAV4 drive into the parking lot and park. He then watched Alvarez exit his vehicle and enter the RAV4. When Alvarez exited the RAV4, it left the lot. Based on the meeting between Alvarez and the RAV4’s driver, Flores suspected that the RAV4 carried narcotics. The RAV4’s driver ultimately was identified as Sanchez.
The HIDTA officers decided to contact a patrol unit in the area to conduct a “wall stop.” Flores explained that a wall stop is an investigative tool whereby officers investigating a particular subject contact patrol officers in the area and request that the officers follow the subject and “find their own probable cause.” The HIDTA officers contacted Detective Ferguson of the Bakersfield Police Department and asked that he coordinate a “wall stop.”
Detective Ferguson called Bakersfield Police Officer Dennis Eddy and told him that a white RAV4 might be carrying narcotics and informed him of the RAV4’s direction of travel. Officer Eddy and his partner, Officer Robert Pair, drove to the area and located the RAV4. They followed it, watching for a traffic violation. At the intersection of Beale Avenue and East Truxtun Avenue, they observed Sanchez fail to come to a complete stop.
Two cars were between Sanchez’s car and the patrol vehicle. The officers testified, however, that their vehicle was positioned near the curb on the passenger side of the vehicle and they were thus able to observe appellant’s vehicle.
Officer Pair contacted Sanchez, advised him of the reason for the stop, and asked for his driver’s license and whether he was on probation or parole. Sanchez stated that his license was suspended and admitted he was on parole. After verifying that information, the officers arrested Sanchez for a violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.1. During the search incident to the arrest, they found a large quantity of suspected methamphetamine in the center console.
Sanchez testified he came to a complete stop at the intersection of Beale Avenue and East Truxtun Avenue.
On February 5, 2008, Sanchez’s appellate counsel filed an appellant’s opening brief requesting us to conduct an independent review of the entire record and informing us he advised Sanchez of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. On February 5, 2008, we also advised Sanchez he had 30 days within which to submit a letter stating any grounds of appeal he wanted us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Sanchez’s appellate counsel has complied fully with his professional responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.