Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. VA097235, Michael L. Schuur, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
James Joseph Thomas, in pro. per., and Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
James Thomas entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and admitted a prior conviction under the “Three Strikes” law following a hearing at which his motion to suppress evidence was denied. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the middle term of two years, doubled under the Three Strikes law to four years. Defendant’s plea was based on a September 13, 2006 incident in which a firearm was found in the car defendant was driving. In exchange for the plea, a second prior conviction allegation under the Three Strikes law and four prior conviction allegations on which defendant had served separate prison terms were dismissed.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) We then notified defendant that he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Defendant has done so.
In his supplemental brief, defendant argues that trial counsel, to whom defendant paid $15,000, rendered ineffective assistance in allowing an associate to appear at a hearing at which it was stipulated that a commissioner could hear the case, in handling the suppression motion, and in allowing for defendant’s plea to be entered immediately upon denial of the motion without telling defendant that the ruling denying suppression could be appealed. Defendant’s arguments are without merit.
At the suppression motion, a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff testified that he and a partner stopped defendant’s vehicle in a high crime area at 9:00 p.m. because they suspected equipment violations, including illegally tinted windows. Upon contacting defendant, the deputy noticed that defendant’s eyes were bloodshot, there was an unopened can of beer in the cup holder, and the odor of alcohol was being emitted from the car. Defendant was taken to the back seat of the deputies’ patrol car for “officer safety reasons” pending verification of his identity. While there, defendant was asked where the registration and proof of insurance were. He responded that they were inside the center console of his car, further stating that he was “working undercover” and there was also a gun in the center console. A gun was recovered from that location. Defendant presented evidence at the hearing that the windows of the car were not illegally tinted. The court found that the search was supported by probable cause and denied defendant’s motion to suppress.
“To show ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant has the burden of proving that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. [Citations.]” (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 519–520; accord, People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215–218.) “Reviewing courts will reverse convictions on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his act or omission.” (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 581; accord, People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266–267.)
Defendant has failed to show that the decision to allow a commissioner to hear the case fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the suppression motion would have been decided more favorably if it had been heard by a judge. Nor was it of any consequence that defendant may not have been informed of his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion immediately after the ruling was made. The law provides that the denial of a suppression motion may be challenged on appeal from the judgment following a guilty or no contest plea, such as occurred here. (See Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m); People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 600–601.) Our review of the suppression motion hearing reveals no basis upon which to conclude either that defendant’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance in handling the motion or that the trial court erred in denying it.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: VOGEL, J., ROTHSCHILD, J.