P. v. Ford
Filed 11/5/08 P. v. Ford CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EZELL FORD, Defendant and Appellant. | B206151 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA093010) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
William Chidsey, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Los Angeles District Attorney filed an information alleging that on or about September 24, 2007, Ezell Ford (appellant) committed the felony offenses of sale or transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code 11360, subd. (a)) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code 11359.)
Appellant filed a motion to suppress, which was denied. Prior to trial the People moved to amend count 1 to allege a violation of section 11360, subdivision (b) [transportation of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana], a misdemeanor.
Thereafter, a jury found appellant guilty of transportation of marijuana and the lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana.
On January 24, 2008, the court ordered appellant to pay a fine of $100, a state penalty fund assessment of $240 and a $20 court security assessment.
On January 31, 2009, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Prosecution Evidence
On September 24, 2007, at approximately 10:53, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, Darrel Edwards and Joaquin Rincon, were patrolling in the area of San Pedro Street and 92nd Street. While stopped facing north on San Pedro Street, at the intersection with 92nd Street, they saw a brown 2-door 1989 Buick Regal traveling east on 92nd Street at a high rate of speed, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23450. The Buick did not have front or rear license plates, which is a violation of Vehicle Code section 5200, subdivision (a). There were three people in the car.
The deputies followed the Buick, which maintained its speed and turned right onto Towne, one block east. The Buick turned at high speed; causing its wheels to squeal and its rear end to fishtail. As the patrol car approached 93rd Street, Deputy Rincon turned on the patrol cars overhead lights and attempted a traffic stop.
The Buick slowed to 1 to 2 miles per hour. As the car came to a stop, the passenger door opened and appellant, in the right rear passenger seat, leaned forward, placed his right arm outside and discarded a crumpled brown bag. At the time, the patrol car was about 10 to 15 feet behind the Buick, which was illuminated with the patrol cars spotlight. The Buick came to a stop just south of 93rd Street.
Deputy Edwards exited the patrol car and retrieved the paper bag, which was a couple of feet from the Buicks passenger door. Meanwhile, Deputy Rincon contacted the occupants at the drivers door.
Deputy Edwards opened the bag, which held several individually wrapped, Ziploc-style baggies, each containing plant material resembling marijuana. Each bag contained about five dollars worth of marijuana. As Edwards inspected the bag, appellant admitted that the marijuana was his, but said that it was for personal use.
The deputies had the occupants get out of the Buick and placed them in the back seat of the patrol car. As appellant exited the Buick, he ran and was chased by Deputy Edwards. Appellant was caught, arrested and handcuffed. He did not display any signs of being under the influence. Appellant had eleven cents in his possession.
Deputy Rincon searched the Buick and did not find any smoking devices, material, scales, empty baggies, cell phones or paraphernalia. The car did not smell as if the occupants had been smoking. The driver was cited for driving with a suspended license. Both the driver and the other passenger were released. Deputy Rincon booked the marijuana.
A criminalist examined the booked items, consisting of 18 baggies. There was a total of 6.0 grams of plant material. The contents of one baggie, weighing 0.41 grams, was tested and found to be plant material containing marijuana.
Deputy Rincon opined that Ford possessed the marijuana for purposes of sale. His opinion was based on the facts that the amount was greater than needed for personal use and that the marijuana was packaged individually in equal amounts, which is consistent with street sales. An individual marijuana cigarette contains between .2 and .27 grams.
Defense Evidence
Appellant testified that he regularly smokes marijuana. He and his friends smoke about 3.5 grams of marijuana every day. Appellant has been smoking marijuana since 9th grade and that he smokes marijuana all day, every day.
Three days previously, appellant had been stopped by sheriffs deputies. The deputies searched the car and knew that he was in possession of marijuana. On that occasion, he was ticketed for not having a drivers license and released.
Appellant and his friends make music and go to a studio every day. This day they were going to a friends house to smoke marijuana as a reward for hard work done that weekend. Saturday, they threw a party and they had parties every weekend until 3:00 a.m.
Appellant and friends intended to share the marijuana. They purchased the marijuana that night and intended to smoke half of it. Appellant doesnt sell marijuana and did not intend to sell the marijuana. They smoke marijuana in a blunt [which is a cigar]. Each blunt required two baggies of marijuana. Appellants friends each had two boxes of cigars, totaling ten cigars, in their pockets. Appellant wasnt carrying any cigars.
Appellant told Deputy Edwards that it was their marijuana, not that it was his marijuana and that they intended to smoke it. Appellant denied throwing the marijuana out of the car.
DISCUSSION
On May 7, 2008, 2008, we appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, on July 11, 2008, counsel filed an opening brief that contained an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues. On July 14, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. As of todays date, no supplemental documents have been filed by appellant.
We agree with counsel that there are no arguable issues in this appeal. The Notice of appeal filed in this case says that the court should have granted the motion to suppress the evidence. The memorandum of points and authorities filed in connection with the motion to suppress argued that all evidence seized after Mr. Ford was detained and arrested must be suppressed because the initial detention, interrogation, and search were illegal. The trial judge concluded that the sheriffs initial observation of the vehicle traveling at excessive speed, together with the fact that the vehicle did not have front or rear license plates provided a reasonable suspicion of a vehicle code violation and reason to detain appellant. The marijuana was placed outside of the vehicle and effectively abandoned. The trial judges conclusions are consistent with the law regarding search and seizure and he appropriately denied the motion to suppress.
DISPOSITION
Based on our examination of the entire record we are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities, and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende, (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.
COOPER, P.J.
We concur:
RUBIN, J.
FLIER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
