P. v. >Harvey>
Filed 7/26/12 P. v. Harvey 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
JASON GEORGE HARVEY,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B239264
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. PA068575)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County.
Beverly Reid O’ Connell, Judge.
Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________
During
the evening of September 13, 2010,
Los Angeles Police Department detectives had a Sun Valley
apartment building under surveillance.
The detectives saw appellant Jason George Harvey sitting in the driver’s
seat of his car parked in the building’s underground garage. A male stood on the driver’s side of the car
and a female stood on the passenger side.
The officers saw the male reach into the open driver’s side window and
then walk away. Based on their
experience and training, the detectives concluded they had witnessed a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">drug transaction.
One
of the detectives approached and stopped the man who had reached into
appellant’s car. The detective searched
the man’s pocket and found rock cocaine.
The detective alerted his fellow detective, who approached appellant
standing near his car. That second
detective asked for and received appellant’s permission to search appellant’s
car. The detective found a small amount
of marijuana and cocaine under the car’s front seat.
The
People filed an information charging appellant with selling cocaine. The information further alleged that
appellant had suffered two prior prison terms and one strike under the Three
Strikes law.
Appellant
pleaded not guilty. He thereafter filed
a Pitchess motion seeking information
relevant to his defense that the detectives were mistaken or lying when they
claimed he consented to a search of his vehicle. The court granted an in-camera hearing and
ordered disclosure of information from one detective’s file.
Appellant
also moved to suppress evidence seized from his car on the ground he had not
consented to the search. Arguing the
detectives had no articulable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal
conduct, he sought suppression of the cocaine seized from his car as the
product of an unlawful search. After a hearing, the court denied the motion
on the ground that discovery of cocaine on the male who had reached into appellant’s
car supported the detective’s request to search appellant’s car.
Appellant
thereafter entered into a plea bargain.
He waived his rights to jury trial, confrontation, and silence, and
pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine.
As part of the plea bargain, the People dismissed the charge of selling
cocaine. The court sentenced appellant
to state prison for four years, consisting of the mid-term of two years doubled
under the Three Strikes law. The court
awarded appellant pre-sentence custody credit of 7 actual days and 6 local
conduct credits.
Appellant
filed a notice of appeal from denial of his motion to suppress. We appointed appellate counsel to represent
appellant. On May 7, 2012, appellant’s counsel filed a >Wende brief stating he could not find any href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">arguable issues for appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
We sent a letter to appellant inviting him to file a letter or brief
raising any issues he wanted us to consider.
Appellant has not filed any such letter or brief. We have reviewed the record, paying
particular attention to the court’s credibility determinations in the motion to
suppress, and find no arguable issues for appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
FLIER,
J.
SORTINO,
J.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">*>
id=ftn1>
href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">* Judge
of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


