P.
v. Peterson
Filed 4/2/13
P. v. Peterson CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
JOSEPH M. PETERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242410
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. SA075392-02)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Lawrence J. Mira, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L.
Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
>
Joseph M.
Peterson pled no contest to possession of
a controlled substance and appeals from the denial of his
no arguable issue that would aid Peterson.
We affirm the judgment of conviction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Deputy
Sheriff Guillermo Loza was on routine patrol at the intersection of Topanga
Canyon Boulevard and Lanark
Street at 0202 hours on July 1, 2010 when he saw a red Ford F-350 pickup
truck speeding southbound on Topanga while straddling the lane lines. He believed the vehicle was traveling 15
miles an hour over the posted limit. He
and his partner, Deputy Justin Solomon, initiated a traffic stop of the
pickup. Deputy Loza walked up to the
passenger side of the pickup. He saw the
driver lean down toward the right floorboard area, then suddenly sit back in
his seat. The deputy saw a baggy
containing a crystallized substance resembling methamphetamine protruding from
underneath the plastic driver’s side floor mat.
The baggy was within arm’s reach of the passenger, but the deputy did
not see the passenger make any downward movements. Deputy Solomon detained the driver, searched
him for narcotics, and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car. Deputy Solomon then took the passenger,
appellant, out of the pickup and searched him for narcotics and weapons. Deputy Loza saw Deputy Solomon retrieve a
plastic bindle containing a crystallized substance resembling methamphetamine
from appellant’s right zipper short pocket.
The bindle was booked into evidence.
Based on the initial observation of a crystallized substance resembling
methamphetamine taken from his pocket, appellant was detained and arrested for
possession of methamphetamine.
Appellant
was charged with possession of
methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377,
subdivision (a) and it was alleged that he had served a prior prison term
within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the preliminary hearing, the court heard
and denied appellant’s motion to suppress the drugs seized from his pocket. Appellant was held to answer, arraigned, and
pled not guilty. He then renewed the
denied. Appellant waived his
contest. He was placed on summary
probation under the Proposition 36 alternative sentencing scheme. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We
appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed an appellate brief
raising no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on
appeal pursuant to
436, 441–442. We advised appellant that
he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or
arguments he wished this court to consider.
No response has been received.
We have
independently reviewed the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442, and find no arguable
issues that could aid appellant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE,
J.
SUZUKAWA,
J.
