Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA069538, Terry Lee Smerling, Judge.
Joanie P. Chen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MANELLA, J.
Steve M. Blackmon appeals from an order of the superior court revoking his probation and sentencing him to two years in state prison.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On April 27, 2007, appellant was charged by felony complaint with one count of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). On May 10, 2007, appellant pled no contest to the first count, transportation of marijuana. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three year’s probation without active supervision, under the condition that appellant serve three days in county jail, with credit for three days served. Appellant was required to enroll in and complete the drug court program as a condition of probation. The second count was dismissed.
On July 16, 2007, appellant’s probation was revoked after he was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. On July 23, 2007, appellant admitted to a probation violation, and his probation was reinstated and converted to formal probation. He was admitted into the intensive probation supervision program.
On September 7, 2007, appellant’s probation was modified to impose a stay-away order with respect to a victim.
On November 14, 2007, appellant admitted to a probation violation after he was rejected from the drug court program. Appellant’s probation was revoked and then reinstated and modified to refer appellant to Grandview for treatment.
On August 13, 2008, appellant’s probation was again modified because he completed the intensive probation supervision program. The court placed him on regular formal probation and ordered the testing order deleted.
On September 4, 2009, appellant’s probation was revoked based on a new arrest. A probation violation hearing was scheduled for January 15, 2010. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that his arrest was unconstitutional. After numerous continuances requested by both parties, the court held a probation violation hearing on May 21, 2010.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Prosecution Evidence
Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Michael Prince testified that on August 15, 2009, at about 3:30 p.m., he and his partner saw a car parked in the middle of Sacramento Street in Altadena, blocking both westbound and eastbound traffic. There was no traffic on the street other than the deputy’s patrol car. As Deputy Prince drove his patrol car slowly toward the stopped car, he saw five or six men standing around it. The men scattered as the patrol car approached. Appellant was the driver and sole occupant of the stopped car. It appeared to Deputy Prince that there might have been a drug transaction taking place.
Deputy Prince pulled behind appellant’s car to cite him for blocking traffic or for parking more than 18 inches from the curb. When Deputy Prince approached appellant to ask for his license and registration, he noticed a strong smell of marijuana coming from inside appellant’s car. A check of appellant’s license revealed that appellant was on probation for a marijuana charge and was subject to search conditions.
After Deputy Prince confirmed with appellant that he was on probation, he asked appellant to get out of his car for a search of his person and the car. He asked appellant if he had any marijuana with him, and appellant admitted he had “‘a little bit.’” The deputies found a large amount of cash in appellant’s pocket and a cloth bag in appellant’s car that contained about 50 individual baggies of marijuana and a digital scale. The deputies took pictures of the scene, to show the placement of the patrol car and appellant’s car, the location of the initial traffic stop, and the items discovered during the search. The deputies arrested appellant for possession of marijuana for sale, but allowed him to release the money and his car to a friend.
Defense Evidence
Appellant testified that on the day of his arrest, he stopped on Sacramento Street at a place where he knew people played basketball. There was a basketball backboard in the middle of the street against the curb, on the side of the street with foliage and no houses. Appellant had bought barbecued ribs to share with a friend he was meeting, and he was eating some in the car. He stopped his car because he saw some people he knew, and they wanted some of the barbecue.
Appellant had bought the marijuana about an hour and a half earlier. He bought $300 worth of marijuana with a settlement from a workers’ compensation case. After going on disability in 2002 due to a work-related injury, appellant took pain medication until 2005 when he stopped because the medication made him dizzy, disoriented, and nauseated. Appellant asked his doctor about medical marijuana, but his doctor said he could not prescribe it, so he went to a different doctor. Appellant received a document from that doctor recommending medical marijuana. Cross-examination revealed, however, that the document was dated August 24, but his arrest was on August 15.
Appellant testified that he told the deputies he possessed the marijuana for medical reasons. However, he had never asked the court to modify his probation to permit him to use medical marijuana.
The trial court found that appellant’s medical marijuana claim was an attempt to justify being caught with a large amount of marijuana, and revoked his probation. The court also rejected appellant’s claim that the deputies did not have the right to investigate why appellant’s car was stopped in the middle of the street, which was the basis for appellant’s suppression motion. The court sentenced appellant to the low term of two years in state prison and gave him credit for 17 days of actual custody and 17 days of good time/work time credit, for a total of 34 days. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to review the record independently pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On December 21, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. The letter we sent was returned, so we resent the letter to a new location on January 13, 2011, again giving appellant 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues. No response has been received to date.
“The standard of proof required for revocation of probation is a preponderance of evidence to support the violation. [Citation.] Trial courts are granted great discretion in deciding whether or not to revoke probation. [Citation.] ‘Absent abuse of that discretion, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Kelly (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 961, 965.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s probation.
Nor did the trial court err in denying appellant’s suppression motion. “When considering a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion, ‘we view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, deferring to those express or implied findings of fact supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 528-529.) “We exercise our independent judgment to determine whether, on the facts found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [Citations.]” (People v. Strider (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1398.) “To justify an investigative stop or detention, the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts which, viewed objectively, would cause a reasonable officer to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person the officer intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. [Citations.]” (People v. Conway (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) The trial court’s finding that the investigative stop was justified by the circumstances is supported by the record.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J., SUZUKAWA, J.