P. v. Frazier
Filed 2/4/10 P. v. Frazier CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAMUEL JOE FRAZIER, Defendant and Appellant. | B215709 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA072235) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric C. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of James Koester and James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Samuel Joe Frazier appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, his no contest plea to selling, transporting, or offering to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), his admission he was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c), and his admission he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subd. (b)-(i).) He was sentenced to prison for a total of nine years, consisting of the low term of three years, doubled to six years by reason of his prior strike conviction, plus three years for the firearm enhancement. As part of the negotiated plea, one count of possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) and one count of carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm (Pen. Code, 12031, subd. (a)(1)) were dismissed and appellant agreed to waive 150 days of his actual 242 days of presentence custody credits. He was granted a certificate of probable cause.
The evidence at the suppression hearing established that on June 30, 2008, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Deputy Sheriff Douglas Herb was on patrol in the area of Imperial Highway and Hawthorne in the County of Los Angeles when he observed a silver Cadillac without a front license plate in a gas station. Lack of a front license plate is a violation of California Vehicle Code section 5200. Appellant was standing near the car and appeared to be putting fuel in the car. As Deputy Herb passed the vehicle, he saw that the front drivers window and front passengers window were both illegally tinted, a violation of Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a). After appellant entered the vehicle and drove away from the gas station onto the public street, Deputy Herb was approximately 50 to 65 feet behind appellant and heard loud music coming from the car, a violation of California Vehicle Code section 27007. The deputy conducted a traffic stop for the Vehicle Code violations. As the deputy approached the passenger window, he smelled the strong odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the vehicle. Deputy Herbs partner, Deputy Peterson talked with appellant for a couple of seconds and appellant was then asked to step out of his vehicle. Inside the center console armrest of the front seat, Deputy Herb found a small plastic baggie containing a green, leafy substance resembling marijuana. Deputy Peterson continued to search the vehicle for further contraband and inside the trunk of the vehicle found a clear plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance resembling powder cocaine and a loaded 40-caliber handgun. Deputy Herb observed the license plate on the back of the vehicle was an Oklahoma plate and did not know whether Oklahoma required a front license plate.
Appellant testified that he had been in California a week and was licensed in Oklahoma. He denied that he had any music playing in the vehicle. He purchased the car in January 2008 from a used car lot and the windows were tinted when he bought the vehicle. The windows did not appear to be dark, because in the sunlight you could see through them.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On October 20, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
