From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sorto

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 20, 2008
No. D051564 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE A. SORTO, Defendant and Appellant. D051564 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division February 20, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge, Super. Ct. No. SCN226019

HALLER, J.

A jury convicted Jose A. Sorto of possession of metal knuckles, a felony (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)); possession of methamphetamine, a felony (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11150, subd. (a)), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). Sorto, who earlier had pled guilty to disobeying a court order relating to gang activity (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4)), admitted he had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

The trial court sentenced Sorto to an aggregate term of 32 months in prison after reducing the methamphetamine possession to a misdemeanor and striking the prior prison term enhancement.

FACTS

On March 9, 2007, deputy sheriff Daniel Nickel observed an automobile parked in the parking lot of an apartment complex; the hood of the vehicle was up. Nickel noticed a female seated in the front passenger seat was leaning over to the driver's seat. As Nickel walked over, the passenger exited the vehicle. Sorto was seated in the driver's seat and had a blue bandanna and a gray bag on his lap. In response to the deputy's question, Sorto indicated he was on parole, Sorto then complied with Nickel's request to step out of the car, and as he did so, the bandanna and gray bag fell on the ground. Nickel also saw a small glass pipe in the pocket of the door. Nickel arrested Sorto, who began yelling when placed in Nickel's patrol car.

The court prohibited further mention of the blue bandanna because of its connotations to gang activity, which were irrelevant after Sorto's earlier guilty plea to disobeying a court order relating to gang activity.

Inside the gray bag was a clear plastic bindle containing .36 gram of methamphetamine, a useable amount. Sorto searched the interior of the vehicle and found metal knuckles in plain view in the middle console between the front seats.

At the sheriff's station in Vista, Sorto continued to yell and was characterized as "disruptive"; he banged his fists on a counter. At the station, blood was drawn from Sorto. A toxicologist found methamphetamine in the blood sample and opined, based on the level of the methamphetamine, Sorto would have been under the influence of the drug.

Oscar D., who was 17 years old at the time of trial, testified that Sorto gave him a ride on March 9. Oscar, who lived in the same apartment building as Sorto, said the metal knuckles, the methamphetamine, and the glass pipe were his and he left these items in Sorto's automobile. According to Oscar, Sorto did not know about the items he left in the car. Oscar said he had found the gray bag with the methamphetamine on the ground near his apartment. Oscar testified he hardly ever associated with Sorto and did not consider him to be a friend. In 2005, Oscar robbed an individual of an iPod.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court 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 refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether trial counsel should have filed a motion to suppress evidence; and (2) whether, in light of Sorto's guilty plea, mention of the blue bandanna during Nickel's testimony and the prosecutor's opening argument constituted prejudicial error.

We granted Sorto 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 referred to by appellant counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Sorto on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J. HALLER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Sorto

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 20, 2008
No. D051564 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Sorto

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE A. SORTO, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Feb 20, 2008

Citations

No. D051564 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2008)