Opinion
A119579
4-17-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH ALLEN BROUSSARD, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Joseph Allen Broussard (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellants counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF CASE
An information was filed by the Contra Costa County District Attorneys Office on July 3, 2007, charging appellant with one count each of selling marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).
Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, which was heard and denied on September 26.
Although he originally pleaded not guilty, appellant changed his plea and pleaded nolo contendere on October 9 to count two (possession of marijuana for sale, Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), and a new misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)) added by amendment to the information. In return, it was agreed that appellant would be placed on formal probation for two years, and would serve 45 days in county jail reduced by custody credit of 2 days. Other appropriate conditions of probation were agreed to and imposed. All other charges were dismissed. At the same time, appellant signed and initialed a change of plea form on which the consequences of his plea were explained, and acknowledged that he understood and voluntarily consented to a waiver of his constitutional rights including the right to a jury trial, to subpoena and confront witnesses, and to refuse to incriminate himself.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
As noted, appellants motion to suppress evidence was heard on September 26. That motion challenged whether there was reasonable cause to detain appellant. Appellant was observed operating an automobile near midnight on Willow Road in San Pablo, by an officer with the San Pablo Police Department who noticed that appellants vehicle did not have brake lights illuminated as he slowed for two speed bumps. Appellant had been traveling approximately 25 miles per hour before slowing to 10-15 mile per hour for the speed bumps. Operating a vehicle without working brake lights is a violation of the Vehicle Code.
The officer activated his patrol car lights to stop appellant in order to perform a traffic enforcement stop. As appellant stopped his car, the officer noticed once again the absence of brake lights.
When the officer approached the drivers side window he immediately observed three baggies of what looked like marijuana in the dashboard ashtray. At the officers request, appellant exited the vehicle, however, upon doing so he ran northbound on Willow Road. The officer chased appellant for approximately 150 yards before appellant was placed in handcuffs and arrested.
Appellant called his father as a witness, who testified that he and appellant retrieved appellants vehicle from the impound yard after his arrest. They checked the brake lights at the yard, and all were working properly.
Appellant also called an intern working for the Contra Costa County Public Defenders Office who testified about observing vehicles slowing for the speed bumps on Willow Road. He observed about 20 vehicles and noticed that 25 percent of them did not apply their brakes in order to pass over the bumps.
After affording counsel a opportunity to argue, the trial court took the matter under submission over the lunch hour. Later that day, the court denied the motion after concluding that, while it was possible that appellant simply slowed and did not brake his vehicle when he passed over the speed bumps, it was reasonable for the officer to assume that appellant, in fact braked, given that he slowed from 25 to 5 or 10 miles per hour. This inference was confirmed when the officer said he saw no brake lights as appellant stopped his vehicle after the officer signaled him to stop. Based on these observations and conclusions, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop appellant.
CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON INDEPENDENT RECORD REVIEW
We discern no error in denying appellants motion to suppress evidence, which was supported by substantial evidence, and consistent with law. There also was no error in connection with the sentencing or plea disposition. The sentencing choice made by the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, and was well within the discretion of the trial court. The restitution fines and penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel. Upon our independent review of the record, we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
Sepulveda, J.
Rivera, J. --------------- Notes: All further dates refer to the calendar year 2007 unless otherwise indicated.