P. v. Jorrin





















Filed 3/22/13 P. v. Jorrin CA3









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED







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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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>

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento>)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO MANUEL JORRIN, Defendant and Appellant.

C071926 (Super. Ct. No. 12F01200)

Appointed
counsel for defendant Eduardo Manuel
Jorrin asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result
in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we shall affirm the judgment.

We
provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On February 14, 2012, Los Rios College
Police Officer Charles Burnett was driving his vehicle on patrol at Sacramento
City College.
When he entered the parking lot
designated for paratransit drop-off and handicapped parking, Burnett saw
defendant making an unsafe turn in his vehicle.
Burnett activated the overhead lights on his patrol car and drove his
vehicle until it was front bumper to front bumper with defendant’s
vehicle.

While
stopped, bumper to bumper, with defendant’s car, Burnett saw defendant moving
around a lot with his hands below the dashboard and looking into his lap. Defendant then drove his car in reverse with
Burnett pursuing him until defendant’s car was blocked into a corner of the
parking lot. Burnett then got out of his
patrol vehicle and approached the passenger side of defendant’s car.

As he
approached defendant’s car, Burnett smelled marijuana, saw a glass jar
containing marijuana on the floorboard of the car, and asked to see defendant’s
driver’s license. Defendant told Burnett
he did not have permission to search
his car, and handed Burnett his driver’s
license. Burnett then asked defendant to
step out of the car.

When
defendant got out of the car, Burnett noticed a bulge in defendant’s
pocket. Burnett attempted to perform a
pat-down search of defendant, then attempted to place a control hold on
defendant by taking a hold of defendant’s hands. Initially, defendant resisted Burnett, but
ultimately complied and Burnett was able to place defendant in handcuffs. However, when Burnett tried to spread
defendant’s feet, defendant began kicking at Burnett.

Once
defendant stopped resisting the search, he told Burnett that he had “a little
bit of weed.” Burnett responded: “if that’s all this is about, you need to
relax and be compliant for a few more seconds.”
Burnett then removed an unloaded revolver from the heavy bulge in
defendant’s front pocket. A subsequent
search of defendant’s car revealed a glass jar containing marijuana, and
bullets were found in defendant’s shoe.

Defendant
was arrested and charged with unlawfully bringing a firearm to a college campus
(Pen. Code, § 626.9, subd. (i)), unlawfully carrying a concealed revolver
within his vehicle (id.,
§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of not more than 28.5 grams of
marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). It was further alleged that “both the
firearm, and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that
firearm, were in the immediate possession of . . . defendant and were
readily accessible to . . . defendant, and the firearm was loaded;
and, further . . . defendant is not listed with the Department of
Justice pursuant to Penal Code section 11106[, subdivision] (c)(1) as the
registered owner of that particular firearm, within the meaning of Penal Code
section 25400[, subdivision] (c)(6).”

Defendant
filed a motion to suppress evidence found as a result of the search he argued
was unlawful. The trial court heard
defendant’s motion along with the preliminary hearing; the court denied
defendant’s motion to suppress and defendant was held to answer to all charges
and allegations. Defendant then pleaded
no contest to carrying a concealed revolver in his vehicle in exchange for a
conditional promise of no state prison, five years of formal probation, and a
dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations.

Defendant
was later sentenced to five years of formal probation in accordance with his
plea and the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. In addition, the trial court ordered
defendant to serve 90 days in county jail, ordered him to pay various fines and
fees, and awarded defendant six days of custody credit (three days of actual
and three days of conduct). Defendant
appealed with a certificate of probable cause.


Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked
this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was
advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of
the date of filing the opening brief.
More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication
from defendant.

Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.







BUTZ , J.







We concur:







NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.







MAURO , J.