P. v. Rosales













Filed 7/30/10 P. v. Rosales CA4/2













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 >



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL PEDROZA ROSALES, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

E048519 (Super.Ct.No. RIF128141) OPINION

APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of Riverside
County. Elisabeth
Sichel and Bernard Schwartz, Judges.
Affirmed with directions.

David
McNeil Morse, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Edmund
G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane
R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant
Attorney General, James D. Dutton and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.



A jury convicted defendant and appellant Manuel Pedroza Rosales, Jr., of
two counts of transporting
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), counts 1
& 3), possessing methamphetamine
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), count 2), possessing
methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, count 4), and
possessing less than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357,
subd. (b), count 5). Counts 1 and 2
arose from an incident on January 24,
2006; counts 3 through 5 arose from an incident on January 5, 2006. Defendant contends the trial court erred in
denying his motion, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, to suppress the
evidence seized on January 24, 2006. We affirm with directions to correct the
abstract of judgment.

>BACKGROUND

At 6:30 p.m., on January 24, 2006, a police officer and his partner pulled
over a black, four-door Mitsubishi Galant that was speeding. Defendant was in the front passenger seat;
the car belonged to him. The driver was
on probation. The driver was asked to
exit the vehicle and was searched.
Defendant was asked to exit the vehicle and complied. The police officer told defendant that
because the â€