From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 12, 2012
F061530 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)

Opinion

F061530

01-12-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAFRANCE RAY BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.

Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. F09901190)


OPINION


THE COURT

Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge.

Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In April 2009, appellant, Lafrance Ray Brown, filed a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). In May 2009, following a hearing, the court denied the motion. In August 2010, appellant pled no contest to possession of cocaine base for purposes of sale and admitted allegations that he had suffered a "strike" and that he had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In October 2010, the court struck the prior prison term enhancement and imposed a sentence of six years, consisting of the three-year lower term on the substantive offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).

We use the term "strike" as a synonym for "prior felony conviction" within the meaning of the "three strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and requested that the court issue a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). The court granted that request.

In his request for a certificate of probable cause, appellant asserted the following: the court erred in denying his suppression motion; due to his "disability," he "didn't understand any of the court proceedings"; and his trial counsel "failed to [file] the proper motions ...." (Unnecessary capitalization omitted.)

Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Facts

City of Fresno Police Officers Alfred Campos and Tom Gregory were on duty on February 24, 2009, when, at approximately 6:30 p.m., a "confidential informant" (CI) told them that a black male "with cornrows" was selling rock cocaine. The CI gave the officers a telephone number. The officers called the number and arranged for a $20 purchase of rock cocaine.

Except as otherwise indicated, our factual summary is taken from Officer Campos's testimony at the hearing on appellant's suppression motion.
--------

Thereafter, Officers Campos and Gregory went to the "meet location." From his vantage point across the street from that location, Officer Campos saw a Camaro automobile approach. It had no front license plate. The car stopped and a black male with cornrows got out. In court, Officer Campos identified this person as appellant. Officer Campos approached appellant, who made a "sudden jerk" but remained standing by the car. The officer told appellant "about his front plate needed information" [sic] and appellant stated he was on parole.

At that point, the officers "conducted a parole compliance check," during which they searched appellant's pockets and found a cell phone. Officer Campos checked it and determined that it had received a call from the phone that the officers had previously used to arrange the purported drug deal. The officers found no contraband on appellant's person. At that point, Officer Gregory contacted Agent Kevin Conorich, appellant's parole officer, by telephone.

Agent Conorich testified to the following: On February 24, 2009, he received a telephone call from Officer Gregory who had detained appellant; the officer asked what appellant's search terms were; and Agent Conorich told the officer that appellant was "subject to" a "strip search[.]"

Thereafter, the officers took appellant to the jail. There, appellant stated he "wanted to kill himself." At the officers' request, appellant removed his shirt and pants and, in conducting a "visual inspection," the officers "saw a baggy at the crown of [appellant's] anal area." At that point, because appellant had mentioned suicide, the officers called an ambulance to take him to the hospital.

Appellant was subsequently transported by ambulance to the hospital. While waiting to be seen by a physician, appellant volunteered to remove the baggy himself. He did so and handed it to Officer Campos. The baggy contained 15 rocks of cocaine.

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 12, 2012
F061530 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAFRANCE RAY BROWN, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 12, 2012

Citations

F061530 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)