P. v. Brown
Filed
10/5/10 P. v. Brown CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
ROBERT HAROLD BROWN,
Defendant and
Appellant.
H035456
(Santa Clara County
Super.Ct.No. BB837105)
Defendant
Robert Harold Brown appeals from a judgment of conviction following his no contest
plea to forging a driver's license and checks.
Counsel for defendant has filed an opening
brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant, as he is entitled to do,
filed his own letter brief. We have, as
required by Wende and People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106, 110, 124, set forth herein the facts, the procedural background
(including a description of the crimes of which defendant was convicted), and
the disposition of defendant's case; reviewed the entire relevant record; and
considered defendant's arguments.
We
will affirm the judgment.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
I. Facts
Because defendant pleaded no
contest, we take the facts from a waived probation referral and a hearing on a motion to replace defense counsel (
A police officer carried out
a traffic stop and discovered defendant in possession of 10 forged checks
totaling $5,438.23. The checks showed
defendant as the payee and the Alvarado Street Bakery, defendant's former
employer, as the issuer. Alvarado Street
Bakery had not issued the checks, and the account number on them belonged to a
different entity. The officer also found
a driver's license showing some data belonging to defendant, but the license
had been issued to a different person.
II. Procedural Background
A felony complaint filed on November 6,
2008, charged defendant
with possessing a forged driver's license with the intent to use it to
facilitate the commission of a forgery (Pen. Code, § 470a) and forgery of
checks (§ 470, subd. (d)).[1] The
complaint alleged that defendant had
been convicted of a felony for which he served a prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
On December
28, 2009, the trial
court held a closed ex parte hearing
to consider defendant's Marsden
motion to replace his counsel. Most of
the hearing consisted of defendant's explaining and apologizing for a failure
to appear timely in court and the court's explaining procedural matters to
defendant. At one point, defendant
mentioned that he thought the search of his vehicle and seizure of evidence
from it followed a pretextual traffic stop and that the arresting officer
behaved aggressively. He did not
complain, however, that his counsel improperly failed to file a motion to
suppress the evidence (§ 1538.5) derived from the traffic stop.
The trial court denied the
then pleaded no contest to the charges and admitted the allegation. After striking the prior prison term
enhancement pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in state prison,
with 52 days' presentence confinement credit under section 2933.1 and 52 days'
presentence good conduct credit under section 4019.
DISCUSSION
I.
Assistance of Counsel
Defendant
claims that the arresting officer abused his authority by treating him roughly
during the traffic stop and pulling him over on a pretext. He also faults counsel for failing to bring a
motion to suppress the evidence (§ 1538.5) derived from the traffic stop.
If
the officer mistreated defendant by acting too roughly toward him, defendant's
remedy is not suppression of the evidence.
The Fourth Amendment does not remedy abusive police conduct of this type
by suppressing evidence; rather, the remedy is a civil suit. (See Hudson
v. Michigan (2006) 547 U.S. 586, 588-589,
590-594; U.S.
Defendant's
claim of a pretextual stop contains components both of a substantive violation
of the Fourth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the Fourth
Amendment, â€
| Description | Defendant Robert Harold Brown appeals from a judgment of conviction following his no contest plea to forging a driver's license and checks. Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant, as he is entitled to do, filed his own letter brief. We have, as required by Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124, set forth herein the facts, the procedural background (including a description of the crimes of which defendant was convicted), and the disposition of defendant's case; reviewed the entire relevant record; and considered defendant's arguments. Court affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
