From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Miles

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Sep 27, 2012
A135130 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2012)

Opinion

A135130

09-27-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SCOTT DANIEL MILES, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 51108430)

After a negotiated plea of no contest to felony violations of the Health and Safety Code sections 11377 and 11378, defendant Scott Daniel Miles appeals from his conviction and judgment. His appellate counsel filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. After independent review, we conclude there are no arguable issues to brief and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

In the early morning hours of May 8, 2010, a police officer for the El Cerrito Police Department conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle after observing that its rear license plate lamp was not functioning. The officer advised the defendant/driver of the reason for the stop and asked to see his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. Defendant told the officer his name was "Gary Miles" and provided a birth date. He also said he did not have a license or identification card, having lost his wallet. He provided registration under the name "Kathleen Miles." The officer had the dispatcher run the name and birth date defendant provided, and learned that "Gary Miles" had a valid driver's license and no outstanding warrants. The officer then asked defendant to get out of the vehicle because he wanted to check for identification. Defendant asked the officer if he was in trouble, to which the officer replied, "No." Defendant got out and the officer, advising him that he was not under arrest, requested that he turn around and place his hands on top of his head for safety reasons. As defendant complied with this request, the officer noticed a bulge in the back pocket of his shorts, disclosing the presence of what appeared to be defendant's wallet.

This observation, coupled with defendant's statement that he had lost his wallet and had no identification, prompted the officer to remove the wallet from defendant's back pocket, and in it he found an identification card with a photograph of defendant in the name of "Scott Miles." Running the name and the birth date from the card, the officer learned defendant was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant in San Mateo County for a probation violation. After confirming the warrant, the officer placed defendant under arrest. The officer, intending to have the vehicle towed (see Veh. Code, § 22651, subd. (h)(1)), then conducted an inventory search. While inspecting a backpack in the trunk of the vehicle, the officer found what appeared to be methamphetamine.

The officer denied engaging in any search of defendant's person before observing the bulge in defendant's pocket, although, on cross-examination, he stated he asked defendant to exit the vehicle "to further [his] investigation for identification," and whenever he ordered an individual to leave a vehicle he customarily conducted a pat search "for the safety of myself and others."

When booking defendant at the police station, officers found two baggies of what also appeared to be methamphetamine in a zippered pocket on one arm of defendant's jacket, at which point defendant said he had forgotten "those were in there." They also found a cell phone and $456 in cash on defendant's person, in various denominations ranging from $100 bills to $1 bills. A further inventory of the backpack disclosed four cell phones, two digital scales, 34 syringes, and multiple baggies apparently containing methamphetamine. The combined weight of the confiscated drugs, as packaged, was over 46 grams. The parties stipulated the drugs were later determined to be methamphetamine. The officer further found two insurance policies and a telephone bill in the backpack, both in defendant's name.

One of the policies named both defendant and the registered owner as insured drivers of the stopped vehicle.
--------

PROCEEDINGS

A complaint filed October 20, 2010, set out three counts against defendant: (1) a felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (possession for sale of a controlled substance); (2) a felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a) (selling, distributing, or transporting a controlled substance); and (3) a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a) (giving false identity information to a peace officer). On December 29, 2010, defendant pleaded not guilty to these charges.

On March 2, 2011, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, contending the warrantless search of his person conducted on May 8, 2010, violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Fourth Amendment). On June 1, this motion was argued after the presentation of evidence at the preliminary hearing, summarized above. The magistrate denied the motion and held defendant to answer all charges. An information filed June 15 restated the complaint's three counts.

Defendant filed a motion on October 28, 2011, to suppress evidence and dismiss the information pursuant to Penal Code sections 995 and 1538.5, subdivision (i). After a hearing on the motion held November 15, the trial court denied the motion.

On March 28, 2012, defendant entered a negotiated change of plea. He waived his rights. Specifically, he pleaded no contest to count one—the felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (possession for sale of a controlled substance)—and to a new count four—a felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) (possession of a controlled substance). After accepting the change of plea, the court granted the prosecutor's motion to dismiss counts two and three, and proceeded to sentence defendant to 60 days in county jail, with a grant of probation for two years.

The basis for defendant's appeal is the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(A).)

DISCUSSION

In reviewing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress, we accept that court's findings, express or implied, to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence, and we consider independently whether the challenged search, viewed in light of the facts most favorable to the ruling, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (People v. Colbert (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1072.)

Here the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the ruling, indicate that the arresting officer initiated a valid traffic stop based on a nonfunctioning rear license plate lamp. (Veh. Code, § 24601.) The officer was entitled to ask the driver to step out of the vehicle. (See Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 111.) Conducting a pat-down search in order to find identification would have been improper. (See People v. Garcia (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 782, 784.) However, before initiating such a search, the officer noticed that defendant's back pocket was bulging with what was evidently a wallet, leading him to disbelieve defendant's earlier statement that he had no identification because he had lost his wallet. On this basis the officer removed the wallet. Under these particular circumstances, we conclude the officer's conduct—in removing the wallet he observed in order to search for identification—was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. (See People v. Long (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 77, 85-89; see also People v. Loudermilk (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 996, 1001-1004.) Following the officer's valid discovery of defendant's true identity, he properly detained defendant on an outstanding arrest warrant, and the subsequent discovery of incriminating evidence flowed from valid booking and inventory searches. There was no error in denial of defendant's motion to suppress.

We have otherwise reviewed the entire record. Because of defendant's plea of no contest, we do not review any issue concerning the question of guilt. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) We find no error in the proceedings or in the sentence imposed. The court properly determined the validity of defendant's change of plea, correctly awarded credits, imposed appropriate restitution fines and terms of probation, and generally exercised its discretion in a proper manner.

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________

Marchiano, P.J.
We concur: _______________
Margulies, J.
_______________
Dondero, J.


Summaries of

People v. Miles

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Sep 27, 2012
A135130 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Miles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SCOTT DANIEL MILES, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Sep 27, 2012

Citations

A135130 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2012)