Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS060712
Premo, J.
After the trial court rejected defendant Adam Lopez Ramirez’s motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), he pled nolo contendere to the January 24, 2006 possession of a controlled substance, heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). He also admitted suffering a prior conviction of rape by force pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The trial court sentenced him to the agreed-upon lower term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1)). This appeal ensued.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant did not respond.
FACTS
Around 11:00 a.m. on January 24, 2006, Monterey County sheriff’s detectives received an anonymous tip that a stolen vehicle was concealed at an address on San Miguel Canyon Road, and that defendant’s younger brother, Jose Lopez, a probationer living at that address, was involved in several residential burglaries and had stolen the vehicle. The detectives went to the property, questioned neighbors and other persons who were living on the property, and the informant reiterated the information. The detectives then contacted Jose Lopez and as they were speaking to him, defendant appeared from behind a nearby chicken coop. The detectives identified themselves to defendant; defendant identified himself as Jose Lopez’s brother, and after some small talk, Detective Brian Pickens asked defendant if he had anything illegal on his person. Defendant said no, the detective asked if he could search defendant, defendant “turned away from [Pickens], put his arms up in the air and stated go ahead.” No guns were drawn; defendant was not handcuffed or restrained in any way; and Pickens did a “finger sweep” of the coin pocket of defendant’s jeans and located a plastic bag. The bag contained black tar heroin. Pickens asked, “What’s this?” and defendant answered, “[o]h, I have a heroin problem!” Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the heroin, his statement, and observations made at the time, on the basis that the detention and search were illegal.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Specifically, we have reviewed the clerk’s transcript, which contains the motion to suppress, the People’s opposition containing a copy of Pickens’s report, and the reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the motion containing testimony from Detectives Pickens and Pete Ramos and defendant.
Ramos’s testimony corroborated that of Pickens, and defendant’s testimony corroborated that of Pickens and Ramos and Pickens’s written report in the relevant details. Defendant also added the fact that while the detectives were approaching him and were about eight feet away, they asked him to remove the contents of his pockets. He removed $70 in cash and said that was all he had in his pockets. He thought the detectives were worried about officer safety. Thereaftter, Pickens asked for and received permission to search defendant and found the contraband. Defendant also admitted suffering the prior rape conviction.
The state of the record when defendant accepted the plea bargain was that the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established the offense. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.