Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 09CF1727, John Conley, Judge.
R. Randall Riccardo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
O’LEARY, ACTING P.J.
We appointed counsel to represent Jesus NMN Quintana on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. We gave Quintana 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, to assist the court in conducting its independent review counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. The only issue suggested by counsel is the trial court’s denial of Quintana’s motion to suppress evidence. We have reviewed the information provided by counsel and have independently examined the record. We found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm the judgment.
In addition to facts established by the testimony at the motion to suppress evidence hearing, we have included facts from the preliminary hearing and the police report to put Quintana’s guilty pleas in context.
On July 9, 2009, an officer contacted Officers Anthony Panzica and Manuel Moreno. The officer advised Panzica and Moreno a white pickup truck had exited a parking lot on Fifth Street and failed to use a turn signal. Panzica and Moreno located the truck and followed it for a short time. The officers observed the truck driven by Quintana to make a left turn into the parking lot of a hamburger stand, again failing to use a turn signal. The officers followed the truck into the parking lot, activated the siren and lights, and conducted a traffic stop.
Just as Quintana was stopping the vehicle, Panzica observed him throw something out of the driver’s side window. Panzica approached the stopped vehicle and asked Quintana to exit the vehicle. Quintana complied. After Quintana exited the vehicle, Panzica observed hypodermic syringes with needles inside a clear plastic bag positioned behind the headrest on the driver’s seat. Quintana disputed the syringes were visible without the headrests being moved. Panzica asked Quintana if he had any medical condition that required the use of the syringes. Quintana indicated he did not. Testifying at the hearing on the motion to suppress, Quintana insisted he told the officer the syringes belonged to his mother. Moreno arrested Quintana for illegally possessing the hypodermic needles.
At Panzica’s direction, Moreno searched for the item Panzica saw Quintana throw from the driver’s side window. Moreno recovered a light gray film canister. After Panzica confirmed this was the item he saw Quintana throw from the truck, Moreno opened the canister and observed it contained four bindles of a brown tar-like substance that resembled heroin. Moreno searched Quintana’s truck. After Moreno arrested Quintana, his cellular telephone rang. Moreno, pretending to be Quintana, had a conversation with the caller.
The content of the conversation was not revealed during testimony at the hearing on the motion, but was disclosed during the preliminary hearing. Moreno answered Quintana’s cellular telephone pretending to be Quintana. The caller asked to meet Quintana and wanted “a piece.” Moreno inquired, “A piece of black?” The caller responded, “Yeah.”
After being advised of his Miranda rights, Quintana waived his rights and spoke with Moreno. Quintana acknowledged he had thrown the film canister out the driver side window and that it contained heroin. According to the police report, Quintana admitted to selling heroin for about six months. As far as the hypodermic needles, Quintana told Moreno he sometimes furnishes his buyers with needles. Quintana also admitted he typically uses his cellular telephone to conduct his narcotics business. When testifying at the hearing, Quintana denied ever telling Moreno he had thrown anything from the car, or admitting any involvement in narcotics sales.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
An information charged Quintana with possession for sale of a controlled substance, heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) (count 1), and sale or transportation of a controlled substance, heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) (count 2). The information alleged Quintana suffered two or more serious or violent felony convictions for burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(2)(A)). The information further alleged Quintana suffered six prior convictions resulting in prison terms and that he had not remained free of custody, and had committed subsequent felonies, within five years from the date of his previous felony (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Quintana subsequently filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of personnel records of the arresting officers. After reviewing the personnel files in camera, the trial court permitted limited disclosure to the defense. Quintana also filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. After a hearing, the court denied the motion.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d. 531.
Quintana pled guilty to both counts and admitted the six prison priors. The parties stipulated to a sentence of eight years in prison, and the trial court sentenced Quintana accordingly. Quintana filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
The only issue counsel identified pursuant to Anders was the court’s denial of Quintana’s motion to suppress evidence.
In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, when supported by substantial evidence, but we exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts so found, the search was lawful. (People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 719.) “The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures dictates that traffic stops must be supported by articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the driver or a passenger has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law.” (People v. Durazo (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 728, 731.) Reasonable suspicion requires only that “the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.” (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231.)
Here, Panzica and Moreno not only received information regarding the officer’s observation of Quintana’s violation of the Vehicle Code, Moreno personally observed Quintana violate the Vehicle Code by making an abrupt turn from the street into a parking lot without signaling. The traffic stop was reasonable under the circumstances.
“‘[T]here is no hard and fast line to distinguish permissible investigative detentions from impermissible de facto arrests. Instead, the issue is decided on the facts of each case, with focus on whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to dispel or confirm their suspicions quickly, using the least intrusive means reasonably available under the circumstances.’ [Citations.] Important to this assessment, however, are the ‘duration, scope and purpose’ of the stop. [Citation].” (People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 674-675.)
Based on the Vehicle Code violation and the observation of the item being thrown out the driver’s side window, an investigative detention of Quintana was permissible. The later observation of the hypodermic needles justified further detention and the arrest of Quintana.
In addition to considering the issue identified by counsel, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable issue exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, J., ARONSON, J.