Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara R. Johnson, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA324382
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KITCHING, J.
Jason Hilton appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court granted Hilton probation for a period of three years. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts have been taken from the transcript of the motion to suppress evidence.
Shortly after midnight on June 15, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Mike Foster was at the police station monitoring the video surveillance cameras set up along Santa Monica Boulevard between Highland and Las Palmas. Foster noticed Hilton at a pay telephone on Santa Monica Boulevard, just west of Las Palmas. Hilton would hold the telephone to his ear for a time, then pull the telephone approximately six to eight inches away, look back and forth, then attempt to manipulate the coin box. It appeared to Foster that Hilton was “trying to break into the phone box.” After a time, Hilton left the telephone and began to walk down the street. He was smoking a cigarette and he threw the lit cigarette into the street. Because it is a violation of Vehicle Code section 23111 to throw a lit object onto the highway, Foster radioed Officers Beumer and Smith, who were on patrol in the area, and told them of his observations.
At approximately 12:15 a.m. on June 15, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Steven Beumer and his partner, Officer Smith, were on patrol in the area surrounding the intersection of Highland Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard. Beumer was contacted by radio by Officer Foster, who advised Beumer that he was tracking an individual, Hilton, who appeared to have tampered with a pay telephone. Foster had then seen Hilton throw a lit cigarette into the street.
Beumer and Smith found Hilton in a mini-mall at the northeast corner of Santa Monica and Highland. The officers approached Hilton and told him he was being detained for tampering with a pay telephone and throwing a lit cigarette into the street. When Smith then asked Hilton if he had anything on him, Hilton pulled from his shorts pocket a cigarette box which he said had “dope inside it.” Beumer took the box from Hilton, opened it and found inside what appeared to be methamphetamine wrapped in plastic. At that point, the officers placed Hilton under arrest and transported him to the station.
At the station, Beumer and Smith advised Foster that they had “recovered some narcotics from [Hilton].” Beumer and Smith gave the “evidence” to Foster, who examined it. It consisted of “a cellophane bag that had a white crystalline substance resembling methamphetamine” inside. Foster took the bag and booked it into evidence.
Hilton testified that at approximately 12:15 a.m. on June 15, 2007, he was using the pay telephone on the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Las Palmas in an attempt to reach a friend, Joseph, who was supposed to meet him there. While he was trying to reach Joseph by telephone, Hilton periodically looked from side to side to see if Joseph was coming. When Hilton was unable to reach Joseph and had determined that Joseph had not left a message on his voice mail, Hilton walked to the corner of Highland and Santa Monica and went into a store. While in the store, Hilton heard someone ask about a man with a red duffle bag. Since Hilton was carrying a red duffle bag, he assumed they were talking about him. Hilton went around the corner in the store and saw two police officers.
While inside the store, the officers asked Hilton if he had been trying to break into the pay telephone. After Hilton told them that he had just been using the telephone, one of the officers took him by the arm and led him outside the store. Once outside, Officer Smith put his hand in Hilton’s pocket and asked him, “ ‘What do you got on you?’ ” As Smith then pulled the cigarette pack out of Hilton’s pocket, Hilton told him that he “had a little bit of dope in there.”
It was stipulated that the substance recovered from Hilton contained .31 net grams of methamphetamine.
2. Procedural History.
a. The information.
In an information filed September 6, 2007, Hilton was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), a felony.
b. The Pitchess motion.
On December 21, 2007, Hilton filed a motion for pretrial discovery pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. On January 29, 2008, the trial court found “good cause” to hold an in camera hearing and, at the proceeding held in chambers on February 5, 2008, the court found “discoverable information” with regard to one event involving Officer Beumer and one event involving Officer Smith. The trial court directed the custodian of records to provide the appropriate materials to Hilton by February 12, 2008.
c. The motion to suppress evidence.
Hilton filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and a hearing was held on the matter on February 19, 2008. After hearing argument by the parties, the trial court denied Hilton’s motion. The trial court stated, “What I hear both [parties] saying is that the officers had the right to arrest [Hilton]. If they were going to arrest him or not, they had the right to arrest him. And therefore, both of you agree, although you’re disputing what the facts are in this case, that [the officers] had the right to search [Hilton] . . . .”
d. The plea.
Hilton indicated he wished to enter a plea to the charge. After he waived his right to a jury or court trial, the right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense, the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him and his privilege against self-incrimination, Hilton entered a plea of no contest to the possession of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). The trial court granted Hilton probation for a period of three years and explained to Hilton that, if he were eligible, he would be placed on Proposition 36 status. The court then imposed a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (a)), a suspended $200 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $50 lab analysis fee and a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code., § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)).
Based on the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, Hilton filed a timely notice of appeal on March 11, 2008.
At proceedings held on March 18, 2008, it was determined that Hilton was eligible for sentencing under Proposition 36. Imposition of sentence was suspended and Hilton was granted formal probation for a period of three years under specified terms and conditions. The trial court awarded Hilton four days of presentence custody credit.
This court appointed counsel to represent Hilton on appeal on June 13, 2008.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice filed September 8, 2008, the clerk of this court advised Hilton to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
APPELLATE REVIEW
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Hilton’s counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.