From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ignacio

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 25, 2011
No. E051284 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FVA900267, Arthur Harrison and Stephen A. Mapes, Judges.

James M. Chavez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

HOLLENHORST J.

Defendant and appellant Alex Rubio Ignacio was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), count 1.) Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, and the People filed an opposition. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant also moved to exclude field statements he made in response to police questioning. The trial court denied that motion, as well. A jury subsequently found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court granted defendant probation for a period of three years pursuant to Proposition 36.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Deputy Garcia was driving an unmarked patrol unit, when he pulled over a gray Dodge Magnum for a traffic violation. There were two people in the car. Defendant was the passenger. Deputy Garcia contacted the driver and obtained his driver’s license, vehicle registration, and identification. He then walked back to his patrol unit. Another officer, Deputy Mabry, arrived to assist him. Deputy Mabry walked to the passenger side of the car. He noticed defendant stick something down the front of his pants, pull his hand out of his pants, and then adjust his pants and belt. Defendant turned to his right and saw Deputy Mabry. He then hung his head and started breathing heavily. Deputy Mabry motioned for Deputy Garcia to come over and assist him. Deputy Mabry opened the passenger door and asked defendant to step out of the car. Defendant complied. Deputy Mabry had defendant step away from the car and then asked him what he stuck in his pants. Defendant denied sticking anything in his pants and said he was just fixing them. When Deputy Mabry said he did not believe him, defendant admitted he had methamphetamine in his pants. Deputy Mabry conducted a patdown search and asked defendant to pull the methamphetamine out of his pocket. Defendant pulled out a clear plastic baggy, which contained a white crystal substance and gave it to Deputy Mabry. Deputy Mabry gave the baggy to Deputy Garcia, who conducted a field test on the substance and weighed it. The test came back positive for methamphetamine, and it weighed approximately 3.5 grams. A criminalist from the sheriff’s department subsequently tested the substance and confirmed that it was methamphetamine.

Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. At the suppression hearing, he argued that there was no reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and, thus, any evidence seized as a result of the traffic stop should be suppressed. Deputy Garcia testified he conducted the traffic stop because he noticed that the passenger in the car (defendant) was not wearing a seatbelt. Deputy Mabry testified that he observed defendant stick something down his pants, pull his hand out of his pants, and then hang his head and breathe heavily. The driver of the car, defendant’s cousin, testified that defendant was wearing his seatbelt when the car was stopped. The trial court accorded Deputy Garcia credibility and denied the motion, concluding that the stop was reasonable.

Defendant also challenged the admissibility of the statements he made to the deputies prior to his arrest. He argued that he should have been given his Miranda rights prior to being questioned, since he was in custody after being ordered to exit and step away from the vehicle. Upon hearing the officers testify as to what occurred, the trial court denied the motion, concluding that the questioning was investigatory in nature and that defendant was not in custody.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and a few potentially arguable issues, including: 1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; 2) whether the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence; 3) whether the trial court properly denied the motion to exclude defendant’s field statements; 4) whether the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial when Deputy Mabry stated in his testimony that “the subject came back on probation”; 5) whether the trial court erred in giving the jury instruction, which stated that false statements may indicate a consciousness of guilt; and 6) whether the trial court erred in finding that a motor vehicle was involved in this offense. (Veh. Code, § 13202.) Counsel has also requested that this court undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: RAMIREZ P. J., CODRINGTON J.


Summaries of

People v. Ignacio

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 25, 2011
No. E051284 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Ignacio

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEX RUBIO IGNACIO, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Feb 25, 2011

Citations

No. E051284 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)