P. v. Butkovic
Filed 4/2/13 P. v. Butkovic CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
MARIO JUAN BUTKOVIC,
Defendant and
Appellant.
H038437
(Monterey
County
Super. Ct.
No. SSC120026)
Defendant
Mario Juan Butkovic was charged with sale
of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11379, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c) - count one), possession
of a controlled substance for sale while armed with a firearm (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11378; Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c) - count two), possession
of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a) - count three),
possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800,
subd. (a)(1) - count four), and possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code,
§ 30305, subd. (a)(1) - count
five). The trial court denied
defendant’s Pitchess
evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.
Defendant pleaded no contest to counts one, three, and five in order to
receive a stipulated sentence of three years and eight months. Counts one and four were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term
of three years and eight months in state prison. Defendant filed a timely
At
approximately 1:00 a.m. on January 22, 2012,
County Sheriff Deputy Rafael Garcia was patrolling the outskirts of Greenfield. After he observed a vehicle make a U-turn and
pull off to the side of the road, he decided to make a welfare check. He explained that “they were on the county
road, which was late at night and there’s no street lights, like within city
limits, it’s a dark area and they were off on the shoulder. I didn’t know what was wrong with them.†Deputy Garcia had not observed a Vehicle Code
violation or anything that indicated that the vehicle was having a
problem. Deputy Garcia parked his patrol
car approximately one car length behind the vehicle and activated his
spotlight.
Defendant
was seated in the driver’s seat and codefendant, Kelly Hernandez, was seated in
the passenger seat. Velasco Valdez was
standing outside the passenger side of the vehicle. As Deputy Garcia was walking toward the
vehicle, he saw Valdez reach into
the vehicle with cash in his hand, make eye contact with him, and lower his
hand. After Deputy Garcia spoke with Valdez
for about a minute, he noticed a piece of plastic on the ground. Based on his training and experience, he
determined that the piece of plastic was a bindle of what appeared to be
methamphetamine. In his opinion, he had
interrupted a hand to hand drug transaction.
Deputy Garcia then called for backup in order to conduct further
investigation.
While
Deputy Garcia was waiting for backup, he noticed the odor of marijuana coming
from within the vehicle. After Deputies
Maria Garcia and Nicholas Kennedy arrived on the scene, defendant and Hernandez
were ordered out of the vehicle. The
deputies then searched the vehicle. They
found a gun, which defendant admitted belonged to him. The deputies also found a bag containing 1.5
grams of methamphetamine and another bag containing 10 bindles of
methamphetamine. There was no marijuana
in the vehicle, but Valdez had
marijuana on his person.
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed an opening
brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit
written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the
opportunity. Pursuant to
have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no
The
judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________
Mihara,
J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Premo, Acting P. J.
______________________________
Grover, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Cal.3d 531.
