P. v. DeLong

Filed 5/19/06  P. v. DeLong CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

     After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, defendant John Elory DeLong pleaded guilty to first degree robbery in which he personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, §§  211, 212.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)), second degree robbery (id., §§  211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §  11379.6, subd. (a)).  He admitted having suffered a strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§  667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and having served a prior prison term (id., §  667.5, subd. (b)).  In exchange, several related counts were dismissed.  Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 25 years. 

     In a prior appeal to this court, defendant contended his suppression motion should have been granted because his parole search condition did not authorize the searches of his person and car.  We reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court so that the validity of the search could be litigated on other grounds.  (People v. DeLong (Apr.  28, 2004, C044495) [nonpub. opn.].) 

     On remand, defendant withdrew his previous guilty plea.  The trial court heard and again denied his suppression motion. 

     Defendant then pleaded guilty to one count each of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§  211, 212.5, subd. (a)) and second degree robbery (id., §§  211, 212.5, subd. (c)).  He admitted a firearm use allegation (id., §  12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), a strike allegation (id., §  1170.12, subd. (b)) and three prison term allegations (id., §  667.5, subd. (b)).  The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.  Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 14 years. 

     On appeal, defendant contends his suppression motion should have been granted because the police did not have probable cause to stop him or the vehicle in which he rode.  We shall affirm the judgment.

FACTS FROM SUPPRESSION HEARING

     On August 19, 2002, at approximately 5:35 p.m., Stockton Police Sergeant Michael Reynosa observed a 1992 Plymouth Acclaim being driven by David Moore.  Reynosa made a traffic stop of the car after observing that defendant, the car's passenger, did not appear to be wearing a seat belt.  After making the traffic stop, Reynosa determined that Moore was on parole and did not have a driver's license.  Moore gave permission to search his car.  Reynosa asked backup Detective Rodney Rego to watch defendant. 

     As Detective Rego approached the car, he observed that defendant was not wearing his passenger seat belt.  Rego asked defendant for identification.  Defendant gave Rego a check cashing card in the name of Kyle Smith.  When Rego asked for government-issued identification, defendant produced a birth certificate that did not match the information on the check cashing card. 

     Detective Rego asked defendant to step from the car so that the police could search it.  Rego asked defendant â€