P. v. Ford

Filed 7/7/06 P. v. Ford CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William R. Chidsey, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Randy S. Kravis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Tita Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________

Defendant Spenney Ford appeals from his conviction of possession of cocaine base for sale, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5, and from the related recidivist enhancement under section 11370.1, subdivision (a) of that code. The sole issues on appeal are a claim that evidence was admitted in violation of the rule of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and a related claim of constitutionally inadequate representation by counsel. We find no merit in either claim, and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In September 2004, Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff Todd Deeds and other deputies were driving toward defendant's residence in Compton for the purpose of executing a search warrant at that location. The warrant authorized a search for controlled substances. On the way there, the deputy saw defendant riding a bicycle near a corner some three blocks from the residence. The deputies detained defendant. He was handcuffed and placed into the back seat of their patrol vehicle. The vehicle arrived at the residence to be searched, and a search began, aided by a dog trained to alert to narcotics. The dog alerted to a rain gutter where, at the top, a deputy retrieved two brown paper bags.

The deputy who retrieved the bags handed them to Deputy Deeds. Looking inside, Deputy Deeds saw clear zip-lock baggies.

Deputy Deeds walked back to the patrol car in which defendant was seated. The deputy was carrying the bags, one in each hand. This is the vehicle in which defendant was detained. At that point, defendant had been in the patrol car at the residence for about 15 minutes. Seeing the deputy carrying the bags, defendant looked down at them as the deputy seated himself inside the car. Defendant said the bags were his and that he did not want to get his mother in trouble. He asked the deputy how the bags were located and the deputy replied that a narcotics dogs had alerted to their location. Defendant responded, â€