Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara M. Scheper, Judge, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA060090
Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Anson Arnell Perry appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) in case No. PA060090 and his admission that he violated the terms of his probation previously granted following his conviction of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) in case No. LA050552. The trial court sentenced Perry to a total term of two years in prison. We affirm the judgments.
ALDRICH, J.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts have been taken from the transcripts of the motion to suppress evidence and the preliminary hearing.
At approximately 5:20 p.m. on September 24, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Kent Rodriguez and his partner, Officer Jose Mendoza, were in uniform and on patrol in a marked car when they received a call reporting that an “illegal vendor” was selling flowers at the corner of Arleta Avenue and Paxton Street. As the officers arrived at the location, a white Mitsubishi was pulling away from the curb, driving north on Arleta.
The officers spoke with the vendor, who informed them that the driver of the Mitsubishi had just tried to pay him with a counterfeit $20 bill. After advising the vendor that he could no longer sell on the street corner, Rodriguez and Mendoza followed the Mitsubishi. When the driver of the Mitsubishi failed to signal before turning from Arleta onto Chatsworth Street, the officers stopped the car to cite the driver for the traffic violation and to investigate the allegedly counterfeit bill. While Rodriguez questioned the passenger of the car, Mendoza interviewed Perry, who had been driving the vehicle.
Mendoza and Rodriguez asked Perry and the passenger to get out of the car and step onto the sidewalk. Rodriguez informed Perry that he had been stopped for failing to activate his turn signal before turning left onto Chatsworth Street and that the flower vendor had informed the officer that Perry was in possession of a counterfeit $20 bill. Perry indicated he had just gotten the bill from the bank and did not know it was a fake. He then removed two $20 bills from his right sock and handed them to Rodriguez who, after examining them, determined they were counterfeit. The bills were discolored and did not have “[t]he little magnetic strip that says ‘USA twenty’ when [held] up to the light.”
Mendoza asked Perry if he was on probation or parole and Perry informed the officer that he was on parole. When Mendoza asked Perry for identification, Perry pulled out from his rear pocket a “bundle of cards,” none of which bore Perry’s name or photograph. Perry was carrying credit cards and identification bearing the name Joseph Baca. Mendoza then conducted a parole search of Perry and, from one of Perry’s socks, recovered an off-white rock like substance resembling rock cocaine “wrapped in a clear Saran wrap or [a] kind of bag.”
A search of the white Mitsubishi revealed several glass pipes used to ingest narcotics. Two were in the center console and one was tucked between the console and the passenger seat.
2. Procedural History.
Following a preliminary hearing, on October 16, 2007 an information was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. PA060090 alleging Perry received stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), committed petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666), knowingly possessed a counterfeit seal of the United States Treasury (Pen. Code, § 472), and possessed cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). It was further alleged Perry had served prison terms for five prior felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
At proceedings held on February 27, 2008, Perry made a Marsden motion requesting that new counsel be appointed to represent him. In approximately six pages of handwritten notes, Perry provided questions he wished asked of the police officers who initiated the traffic stop. The trial court indicated that much of what Perry was requesting would be covered during the motion to suppress evidence, which would “address the issue of the [flower] vendor.” After indicating Perry had not shown that his counsel was inadequate or that he and his counsel had developed a “strained relationship,” the trial court denied Perry’s Marsden motion.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
At the same February 27, 2008 proceedings, Perry made a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. After hearing the evidence and argument by the parties, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court indicated that, as an initial matter, the police officers had “reasonable suspicion to stop the car based both on the Vehicle Code violation as well as the statements of the [flower] vendor.” With regard to the officers’ request that Perry and his companion get out of the car, the trial court determined that was “appropriate as part of an investigation and what, in [the court’s] view, was a temporary detention not rising to the level of custodial interrogation, which would trigger [the need for] Miranda warnings.” The court then determined that, once Perry acknowledged that he was “subject to a [parole] search condition, . . . everything after that [was] appropriate.”
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
Following denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the matter was continued to April 3, 2008 to allow Perry to bring a Pitchess motion. On that day, the trial court reviewed the moving papers regarding Perry’s motion and determined that, although he had established cause for in camera review, it would not be as extensive as his request. The trial court stated, “I believe there has been established enough facts to warrant the court to look for any evidence that the officers in question either have been complained about for misrepresenting or falsifying facts in an arrest or an investigation report and/or providing false testimony.” However, the trial court did not believe Perry had shown any basis for entrapment, that evidence had been fabricated or planted, or that the officers had engaged in racial profiling.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
During in camera proceedings, the trial court reviewed the files of both Officer Rodriguez and Officer Mendoza. The trial court then determined it would “not order . . . disclosure of any information.” The court found no relevant or responsive complaint in the file of either officer.
On April 16, 2008, the trial court denied Perry’s Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the information. In denying the motion, the trial court indicated the officers had probable cause to stop Perry based on the traffic violation and the information provided by the flower vendor regarding the counterfeit bill.
After the trial court denied Perry’s section 995 motion, counsel for Perry indicated that a disposition had been reached. Perry would plead no contest to count one of the information, receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), and admit that he was in violation of probation granted in a prior matter. In exchange, the trial court would revoke Perry’s probation in the previous matter and, as to the present case, sentence him to the mid-term of two years in state prison.
After waiving his right to a trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination, Perry pleaded no contest to the crime of receiving stolen property. The trial court then sentenced Perry to two years in state prison. Perry was given presentence custody credit for 308 days, consisting of 206 days actually served and 102 days of good time/work time. Perry was ordered to pay a $400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a suspended $400 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45) and a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)).
With regard to his probation violation, Perry was advised that he had a right to “have a formal probation violation hearing . . . where [he] would have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against [him], the right against self-incrimination, and the right to present a defense.” Perry chose to give up those rights and instead stipulated that he was in violation of probation as a result of his conviction of receiving stolen property in case No. PA060090. Accordingly, as to Perry’s violation of probation in case No. LA050552, the trial court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison, the sentence to run concurrently with the two-year sentence imposed for his conviction of receiving stolen property.
On Perry’s motion, the trial court dismissed all remaining charges and allegations.
Perry filed a timely notice of appeal as to both cases on April 16, 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 July 28, 2008, the clerk of this court advised Perry 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 Perry’s counsel has fully complied 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 judgments are affirmed.
We concur: KLEIN, P. J., CROSKEY, J.