Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Super. Ct. No. RIF132064 Roger A. Luebs, Judge.
Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST J.
A jury found defendant and appellant Rohail Masih guilty of one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and one count of transportation of methamphetamine. (§ 11379, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted as true the enhancement allegations that he had suffered two prior drug convictions, within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (c), and that he had served two prior prison terms, within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 11 years in state prison.
All further statutory references will be to the Health and Safety Code, unless otherwise noted.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal immediately following the sentencing hearing. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On the night of August 24, 2006, Officers Brian Jones and Marc Dehdashtian conducted a traffic stop of defendant’s car, after noticing an expired license registration tag. As he was approaching the car, Officer Jones saw the driver, defendant, appear to reach for something by the floorboard, so he commanded defendant to put his hands on the steering wheel. Defendant complied, and Officer Jones went to the driver’s side window to explain why he stopped the car. Officer Jones obtained defendant’s driver’s license. After running a computer check on defendant’s name, he arrested defendant. Officer Jones searched defendant’s car and found a brown paper bag in front of the driver’s seat. Inside the bag were a small scale and four clear plastic baggies containing a crystal substance. He also found defendant’s wallet, which contained almost $1,100 and a cell phone, which rang constantly.
At trial, counsel stipulated that the arrest was lawful.
Defendant was placed in the patrol car, and Officer Dehdashtian read him his Miranda rights. Defendant said he understood and waived his rights. He then admitted that he sold methamphetamine that night.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).
Defendant gave the police permission to search his residence. Officer Dehdashtian found a leather jacket in the bedroom closet. Inside the pocket, he found a digital scale, a large baggie that contained about 50 smaller plastic baggies, and another baggie containing a white, crystal-like substance. Defendant told the officer the substance was “cut,” which is a substance that looks similar to methamphetamine, and is added as a filler to increase the volume of methamphetamine before it is packaged for sale.
The contents of the four baggies found in defendant’s car weighed approximately 37.5 grams (including the weight of the packaging) and field-tested presumptively positive for amphetamines. The contents of two of the baggies were subsequently weighed and tested in a California Department of Justice laboratory and were found to contain the presence of methamphetamine.
At trial, another police officer testified that in 2001 he conducted a traffic stop on defendant’s car, and arrested defendant for having a suspended license. The police searched defendant’s car and found a cell phone, a pager, a scale, several empty plastic baggies, and a water bottle containing three baggies of methamphetamine, which weighed 45.32 grams. The court instructed the jury that evidence of this prior incident was admitted for the limited purpose of deciding whether defendant acted with the intent to sell methamphetamine, or whether he knew that he possessed a controlled substance, in the instant case.
After considering all the evidence presented at trial, the jury deliberated for 27 minutes and returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
DISCUSSION
Dependant 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case and six potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. The potential arguable issues identified by counsel include: 1) whether the expired license registration tag was a proper basis for the traffic stop; 2) whether defendant’s post-Miranda statements were knowingly and voluntarily made; 3) whether the jury’s brief deliberation period violated defendant’s constitutional rights to due process or a fair and impartial jury; 4) whether evidence of defendant’s prior incident was admissible to establish the intent or knowledge elements of the charged offenses in the instant case; 5) whether the opinion testimony of a prosecution drug sales expert constituted “profile” evidence; and 6) whether the trial court was authorized to impose the sentencing enhancements.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P.J. MILLER J.