Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John J. Ryan and B. J. Bjork, Judges, Super.Ct. No. INF055099.
John J. Ryan is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Kazoua Cha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER, J.
Defendant and appellant Simon James King appeals after he was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a).
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential issues, and requesting that the court undertake a review of the entire record.
We have offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
FACT SUMMARY
Deputy Elders of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department saw defendant driving his vehicle without wearing a seat belt. He made a traffic stop and asked defendant for his driver’s license and vehicle registration. The deputy permitted defendant to walk around to the passenger side of the vehicle to retrieve the registration, but stopped defendant when defendant started to reach under the passenger seat, where the deputy could no longer see defendant’s hands. Concerned for his own safety, Deputy Elders asked defendant if he had anything illegal or dangerous on his person. Defendant replied, no, and said, “Go ahead and check.”
Deputy Elders patted defendant down and felt an object in defendant’s left front pocket. He asked what it was; defendant said, “It’s speed.” The deputy reached into defendant’s pocket and removed a baggie, which contained 9.77 grams of methamphetamine.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Defendant was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine. He moved to suppress the drugs. The People opposed the motion on the ground that the search had been consensual. The trial court denied the motion.
The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty as charged. The court referred defendant for evaluation under Proposition 36 for treatment. Upon evaluation, the trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and granted defendant three years’ probation on terms and conditions including defendant’s participation in a drug treatment program.
POSSIBLE ISSUES
Appointed appellate counsel considered two potential issues—the legality of the search and the adequacy of the reasonable doubt instruction—but found that those issues were not arguable. Counsel is correct. As to the search, the officer was free to ask defendant for permission to search, and defendant freely consented. (People v. Gallardo (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 234, 238-239.) The instructional issue is not arguable; the reasonable doubt instruction was proper. (People v. Westbrooks (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1500.)
Defendant has not suggested any additional issues for consideration.
This court has now itself examined the entire record, and we find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P. J., GAUT, J.