Opinion
A123959California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division May 28, 2009
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-081333-7
Ruvolo, P. J.
Appellant Stedmon Romel Searcie (appellant) appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, after which he pleaded no contest to a single count of possession of a concealed firearm. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel asks this court to consider the question of whether the officer who conducted the traffic stop which resulted in appellant’s arrest and seizure of evidence acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment.
Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues are being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead is being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
Appellant was originally charged by criminal complaint with one count each of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. A hearing on the motion took place on November 3, 2008, at the same time as the preliminary hearing was held. The motion was denied by the trial court that same day, and appellant was bound over for arraignment.
An information was filed on November 17, 2008, charging the same crimes as alleged in the original criminal complaint. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the information on November 20, 2008. A motion to dismiss the charges under Penal Code section 995 was filed by appellant, raising the same issue as that presented by the earlier motion to suppress evidence. The motion was denied, and the case set to commence trial on January 20, 2009.
On January 15, 2009, the prosecution amended the information to allege a fourth count of misdemeanor possession of a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant pleaded no contest to this additional charge, in return for which all other counts were dismissed. The court suspended sentencing and placed appellant on two years probation, and ordered him to serve 90 days in county jail with 13 days custody credit.
Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. As to appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, we conclude the determinations that law enforcement had sufficient factual and legal bases to conduct the traffic stop, and that the subsequent seizure of evidence from the vehicle would have been inevitably discovered, were supported by substantial evidence, and supported by applicable legal precedent.
We also discern no error in the disposition. The grant of probation, including the terms of probation, were consistent with applicable law, supported by substantial evidence, and were well within the discretion of the trial court. The restitution fines and penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Sepulveda, J., Rivera, J.