Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA347182, Craig E. Veals, Judge.
Christopher Nalls under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILLHITE, J.
Anselmo Escobar appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and his no contest plea to possession for sale of cocaine base, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. Pursuant to his negotiated plea, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for 36 months, under the condition that he serve 162 days in jail, with credit for 108 days actually served and 54 good time/work credit days.
Appellant’s counsel informs us that he has asked the trial court to recalculate appellant’s custody credits pursuant to amended Penal Code section 4019. (See Pen. Code, § 4019, subds. (b) & (c), as amended by Stats. 2009, ch. 28, § 50.)
On September 20, 2008, officers Nicholas Gallego and Donald Peko were conducting an undercover investigation of narcotics activity at a liquor store at the intersection of Venice and Hobart Boulevards in the city of Los Angeles, in response to complaints. Gallego and Peko were not in uniform and were in an unmarked police car.
Gallego and Peko saw appellant drive his car into the liquor store parking lot, then leave without parking, only to return and drive slowly past the liquor store several more times, looking in the direction of the liquor store. Gallego ran a warrant check of appellant’s car’s license plate number and found a misdemeanor warrant in the name of Jesus Miranda associated with the license plate number. When appellant returned to the liquor store and parked the car, Gallego and Peko stopped him, identified themselves as police officers, and asked him for a driver’s license. In response to their request for a license, appellant gave them a Mexican consulate identification card with the name Anselmo Escobar on it and said that was his license. Appellant’s infant son was in a car seat in the back seat of the car. Gallego arrested appellant for driving without a license, a violation of Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a). Peko searched appellant and found two plastic baggies containing cocaine base in appellant’s pocket and $148 in his wallet.
Appellant was charged by information with one count of child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), one count of transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Appellant pleaded not guilty to all three counts.
On May 7, 2009, appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, contending that there was no justification for the warrantless search and seizure. At the suppression hearing, Gallego testified to the facts as recited above. Appellant testified that he never showed the officers a Mexican consulate identification card and that he had an Oregon driver’s license, but the officers took his wallet and did not give him the opportunity to show it to them. Appellant introduced his driver’s license into evidence and testified that it was in his wallet at the time of his arrest. The prosecution then called Peko to testify in rebuttal, which the trial court allowed over defense counsel’s objection. Peko testified that there was no driver’s license in appellant’s wallet when he searched it at the time of the arrest.
Defense counsel argued that there was no probable cause for the arrest once the officers determined that appellant was not Jesus Miranda, the subject of the warrant. She emphasized appellant’s testimony that his Oregon driver’s license was in his wallet and argued that, even if appellant did not have his license with him, he could not have been arrested for driving without a license because it was not an arrestable offense. The trial court denied appellant’s suppression motion.
Contrary to defense counsel’s argument at the suppression hearing, a violation of Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a), requiring a valid driver’s license, is a misdemeanor, not an infraction. (See Veh. Code, § 40000.11, subd. (b).)
Appellant moved to dismiss the child endangerment count for insufficient evidence. The parties reached an agreement pursuant to which appellant agreed to plead no contest to count three, possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). The trial court accepted appellant’s no contest plea, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on formal probation for 36 months under various terms and conditions, including that he serve 162 days in jail, with credit for 162 days. The remaining counts were dismissed. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On February 19, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
“‘In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and defer to its findings of historical fact, whether express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. We then decide for ourselves what legal principles are relevant, independently apply them to the historical facts, and determine as a matter of law whether there has been an unreasonable search and/or seizure.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Gemmill (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 958, 963.) After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we hold that the court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress.
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., MANELLA, J.