Opinion
B235295
01-31-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK A. TUCKER, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA383078)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John Fisher, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Mark A. Tucker pled no contest to one count of transportation of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation with the condition that he serve 180 days in county jail. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, including the trial court's decision to permit a detective to testify in chambers as to the source of his information concerning drug activity at a particular location. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 1, 2011, Los Angeles Police Detective Christian Mrakich received information that drugs were being sold out of Mike's Liquor Store on Long Beach Boulevard in South Gate. He and other officers surveilled the store. Eventually, appellant and codefendant Marlon Michael Millet entered the store through the front door. Several minutes later, codefendant Nicole Hardaway pulled up in a Dodge Magnum and parked in front of the store. Millet came out and spoke briefly with Hardaway. He then opened the trunk and removed a large black bag, which appeared to be full, and returned with the bag to the store.
A few minutes later, Hardaway drove the car around to a side door, and Millet exited through that door. Millet put what appeared to be the same black bag he had retrieved from the trunk, now empty, back into the trunk, and reentered the store. Shortly thereafter, two men exited the store and stood on opposite ends of the Dodge Magnum, as if standing guard. Appellant, Millet and another man exited through the side door, each carrying a large rectangular block of uniform size tightly wrapped in a trash bag. The three men put the packages in the trunk of the Dodge Magnum. Detective Mrakich testified that he had seen marijuana similarly packaged in the past.
Hardaway drove away alone, and appellant and Millet followed in a Nissan truck. The police followed in unmarked cars. When the two vehicles pulled into a McDonald's parking lot, the officers detained appellant, Hardaway and Millet. Hardaway consented to the search of her vehicle, from which over 60 pounds of marijuana was recovered.
Actually, a child was in the car, but was not observed by the officers at the time.
Appellant moved to suppress all evidence which resulted from the officers' search and seizure of him, including the marijuana recovered from Hardaway's car. The motion was based on appellant's contention that the officers had no probable cause to detain him. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that appellant had no standing to object to the search of Hardaway's car (which he had not occupied), and the officers had probable cause to detain him. Appellant subsequently pled no contest, and the court sentenced him to formal probation on the condition that he serve 180 days in jail.
After examination of the record, appellant's counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requested that this court conduct an independent review of the entire appellate record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. On December 2, 2011, we advised defendant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's appellate attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Specifically, the trial court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress because he lacked standing to challenge the officers' search of Hardaway's car since he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that vehicle. (See, e.g., People v. Moreno (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 577, 587 and cases cited therein.) Moreover, while appellant's trial counsel sought to make an issue of the basis for the officer's belief that his informant was credible, informant reliability was immaterial in this case, since the officers had probable cause to detain appellant based on the activities which they had personally observed while lawfully present on a public street. (People v. Superior Court (Backey) (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 1020, 1025-1026.)
Of course, even if appellant had standing to challenge the search, his challenge would fail, since Hardaway, the car's owner, consented to the search of the vehicle.
--------
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, J. We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.