From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vega

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 8, 2008
No. F054673 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. No. BF121320-A Lee P. Felice, Judge.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), appellant Luis Vega, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The court imposed the upper term sentence of three years.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

It was alleged in an information filed December 13, 2007, that appellant committed, in addition to the instant offense, violations of sections 12316, subdivision (b) (unlawful possession of ammunition) and 12020, subdivision (a)(1) (possession of a sawed-off shotgun), and that he had served four separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

On December 17, 2007, appellant filed a notice of motion to suppress evidence, asserting that he had been illegally detained and seeking the suppression of evidence seized as a result of the illegal detention, including “firearms and ammunition ….”

A hearing on the motion was held on January 25, 2008. At the hearing, Sergeant William Adam of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department testified that while on patrol on November 13, 2007, in a motel parking lot, he saw a man, whom he identified in court as appellant, “walking away from the front area” of a parked red Ford SUV and enter room 175 (the room) of the motel. Sergeant Adam noticed that the “year tab” on the rear license plate of the SUV was “kind of peeling.” He investigated, and found that “the tag did not belong to that vehicle, [in] violation of [the California] Vehicle Code,” the vehicle was registered to a woman and the registration had expired more than six months previously. There was a blue car parked next to the SUV.

Our summary of evidence adduced at the suppression motion hearing is taken from Sergeant Adam’s testimony. In accordance with the usual rules governing appellate review of the denial of a suppression motion, we set forth that evidence in the light most favorable to the denial of the motion. (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)

In an effort to make contact with appellant and determine if the SUV was his or if he had been driving it, Sergeant Adam went to the room and knocked on the door. There was no answer. He then spoke with the motel clerk, who told him that the room was registered to Michelle Getta. A few moments later, Sergeant Adam saw a woman inside the room talking to another woman at the door. The sergeant went to the room and asked the woman inside what her name was. She identified herself as Michelle Sanchez. The sergeant could hear the shower running. He asked the woman if she had any documentation of her identity and if there was a man in the room. The woman said there was no one in the room and walked away, saying she was going to look for some documentation to prove her identity. At that point, the sergeant asked the other woman, who identified herself as Pamela Hawks, the name of the woman inside the room. Hawks said she knew the woman as Eula.

After approximately 10 minutes, the woman inside the room had not come back. At that point, Sergeant Adam knocked, and the woman opened the door. The sergeant, believing that the woman had lied and intending to arrest her for violating section 148.9 (false representation of identity to a peace officer), stepped inside the room and told the woman to tell the man who was in the bathroom to come out. The woman did so.

Appellant emerged from the bathroom. Sergeant Adam asked him his name. Appellant responded that his name was Louie Albert. The sergeant asked if he had ever been arrested before. Appellant responded that he had. Sergeant Adam “checked” and found “no record [of arrest] under that name.” The sergeant also asked appellant to spell his name. Appellant was slow to respond with the correct spelling. At that point, the sergeant, believing appellant had lied to him, placed him under arrest for violation of section 148.9.

Later, at the police station, Sergeant Adam learned appellant’s true name and that appellant was on parole. The sergeant performed a “records check” and learned that appellant owned a vehicle. Sergeant Adam went back to the motel the next day with appellant’s parole officer. By this time, the SUV had been towed away but the vehicle that had been parked next to it, which was registered to appellant and his father, was still there. At that point, the sergeant and the parole officer searched the vehicle “pursuant to the terms of [appellant’s] parole,” and found a loaded sawed-off shotgun between the door and the driver’s seat, and an additional round of ammunition “in the storage compartment in the driver’s side door ….”

As indicated above, after hearing argument, the court denied the motion to suppress. Later that day, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant entered his plea and the court dismissed the remaining charges and enhancement allegations. Appellant then waived preparation of the presentence report and the court imposed sentence.

There is no indication in the record that appellant requested, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Vega

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 8, 2008
No. F054673 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Vega

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS VEGA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 8, 2008

Citations

No. F054673 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2008)