Opinion
F060600 Super. Ct. No. BF130092A
08-04-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JERRY LORENZO DANDRIDGE, Defendant and Appellant.
Donna J. Hooper, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Franson, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael B. Lewis, Judge.
Donna J. Hooper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant, Jerry Lorenzo Dandridge, following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), pled no contest to possession of cocaine base for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and admitted a Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) enhancement allegation that he had suffered a prior conviction of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). The court imposed a prison term of six years consisting of the three-year lower term on the substantive offense and three years on the Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) enhancement. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in which he stated the instant appeal is based on the denial of his suppression motion.
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.
FACTS
Our factual statement is taken from the transcript of the combined preliminary hearing/suppression motion hearing.
City of Bakersfield Police Officer Felipe Juarez testified to the following: On November 18, 2009, he and his partner, Officer Jess Beagley, were on duty in a marked patrol car when, at approximately 9:26 p.m., they saw a car accelerate away from the curb, travel at a rate of approximately 40 miles per hour on a street for which the posted speed limit was 25 miles per hour, and proceed through an intersection without making a complete stop at a stop sign. At that point, the officers conducted a stop of the car. Appellant was the driver.
Officer Juarez further testified to the following: The officers conducted a records check and determined that appellant's driving privilege had been suspended and he was on parole. At that point, Officer Beagley placed appellant in handcuffs and Officer Juarez searched the car and found a plastic bag "tucked away in the back pouch of the passenger seat."
Officer Beagley testified that Officer Juarez showed him the plastic bag he had found in the car. It contained what Officer Beagley suspected was cocaine hydrochloride residue. With appellant standing outside of the car, Officer Beagley then conducted a search of appellant's person and found, in the front left pocket of the sweat pants appellant was wearing, over $1,500 in currency. In addition, while searching "outside of [appellant's] clothing," in "the area of [appellant's] buttocks," the officer "felt an object protruding from [appellant's] anus." At that point Officer Beagley placed appellant in the patrol car, and he and his partner transported appellant to the jail.
Except as otherwise indicated, the remainder of our factual statement is taken from Officer Beagley's testimony.
At the jail, Officers Beagley and Juarez took appellant to a private cell. There, with Officer Juarez and another officer holding appellant's arms, Officer Beagley pulled appellant's sweatpants and boxer shorts down, and saw a black plastic bag protruding approximately one inch from appellant's anus. Officer Beagley removed the plastic bag.
The parties stipulated for purposes of the preliminary hearing that the plastic bag contained 32.92 grams of a substance containing cocaine base.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.