Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. SCN251944 Timothy M. Casserly, Judge.
O'ROURKE, J.
Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), Rogelio Raygoza entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (a)) and transporting more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). The court placed him on three years' probation. Raygoza appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
At 11:15 a.m. on October 10, 2008, United States Border Patrol Agent Edward Ortega was working undercover in the Interstate 15 corridor with a smuggling task force. He was in the center median in an unmarked vehicle, near a checkpoint. He observed a car traveling north that appeared "very heavy in the rear." The driver, the car's only occupant, was on a cell phone and appeared agitated. These factors led Ortega to suspect there were narcotics in the car or people hiding in the back.
Ortega began following the car and pulled up next to it. He saw something in the back of the car, either a person lying between the seats or black bags of the type used to carry narcotics. The car was traveling at about 75 miles per hour and the driver was on the phone again. The driver immediately changed from lane one to lane four to take Highway 76 east and avoid the checkpoint. Ortega followed the car and stopped it. There were black bags in the back seat and the driver, Raygoza, was extremely nervous. His hands were shaking and he refused to make eye contact. He said he had borrowed the car but did not know the owner's name. He said he was going to Temecula but did not know the address. Furthermore, the most direct route to Temecula was Interstate 15, not Highway 76.
Ortega called for a canine officer. When the canine officer arrived, about five to seven minutes later, the dog "alerted" to the car indicating that it contained narcotics. Raygoza consented to a search of the car. There were 248 pounds of marijuana inside inner tubes in the back seat and trunk of the car.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible, but not arguable issues: whether the failure to renew the suppression motion in superior court rendered its denial nonappealable; whether Raygoza was properly advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea and whether he voluntarily waived his rights; whether the conditions and terms of probation were lawful; whether his detention was lawful; and whether the search of his vehicle was lawful.
We granted Raygoza permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Raygoza has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.