Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-090187-6
Jones, P.J.
Maurice Thomas appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
Gina Holguin worked as a surveillance agent at Casino San Pablo in San Pablo. On January 25, 2009, near 7:00 a.m., Holguin was directed to watch the bar area on her surveillance screen because a fight had been reported there. Holguin turned her attention to the bar. She saw appellant and two women. Holguin watched appellant and the women as they left the bar and went into the parking lot. When appellant and the women reached their car, appellant lifted his shirt, withdrew a gun that had been tucked into his waistband, and placed it in the trunk. Holguin told a supervisor what she had seen and recommended that she call the police.
San Pablo Police Officer Alexander Caine was on patrol that morning when he received a report of a man with a gun at the casino. Caine drove to the casino and saw a car that matched the description of the one that had been provided. Because of the nature of the crime that had been reported, Caine and other officers conducted a “high risk car stop.” They ordered the appellant and the women out of the vehicle at gunpoint, placed them in handcuffs, and searched the car. Caine found a magazine for a.45 caliber handgun in the backseat near where appellant had been seated and two loaded firearms in the trunk. One of the guns was still warm.
Based on these facts a complaint was filed charging appellant with the offenses we have set forth above. Appellant filed a motion to suppress. He argued his initial detention was illegal and that it had been unreasonably prolonged. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion and denied it.
After an information was filed charging appellant with the same two offenses, appellant renewed his motion to suppress. The superior court conducted another hearing on appellant’s motion and denied it, ruling the detention and search were justified.
In light of this ruling, appellant agreed to plead no contest to the offenses we have set forth above. In exchange, imposition of sentence would be suspended and appellant would be placed on probation on the condition, inter alia, that he serve 365 days in the county jail.
Subsequently, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation on the condition that he serve 365 days in the county jail.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress. (People v. Coulombe (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 52, 56-58; People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 675; California v. Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565, 580.)
Before accepting appellant’s plea, the court made sure appellant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving. We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Needham, J., Bruiniers, J.