target="B243268_files/props0002.xml">
P. v. Sanchez
Filed 7/10/13
P. v. Sanchez CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SADITH SANCHEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243268
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA097204)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court of
County, George Genesta, Judge.
Affirmed.
Jonathan P.
Fly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January
16, 2012, at 7:35 p.m., West Covina Police Officer Scott Mohler observed
defendant driving southbound on Sunset Avenue just north of Francisquito. Defendant was illegally driving in the area
bounded by double yellow lines before the left turn pocket in order to pass
another vehicle. After passing the other
vehicle, defendant turned left onto eastbound Francisquito. Officer Mohler activated his lights and pulled
her over to the curb. Defendant looked
around the car for her license, and told Officer Mohler she was having a hard
time finding it. Defendant stated she
believed it was on the floorboard and got out of the car and faced Officer
Mohler. Defendant was holding a pink
wallet and made a shaking motion.
Officer Mohler saw a piece of cellophane come out of the wallet and drop
down towards his right foot almost under the car. Defendant moved to step on the object. Officer Mohler, believing the package might
contain a controlled substance, detained her in handcuffs and recovered the
object. The package contained .46 grams
of cocaine base. Officer Mohler searched
defendant’s car and did not find any drug paraphernalia, and although he did
not conduct a sobriety test, he determined while talking to defendant that she
was not under the influence.
Defendant
testified on her own behalf and asserted that she was in the left turn lane and
had the door open. Defendant was
vomiting because she had overeaten and was about to close the door when she saw
the police car behind her with its lights on.
She pulled over. Her window was
open, and when Officer Mohler approached the car, she had her pants unbuttoned
because she was not feeling well. He
asked why her car door was open in the center median and she told him she was
not feeling well. Just 20 minutes
before, she had gotten a traffic ticket so she reached for the glove box to get
her license. Officer Mohler asked her to
step out of the car. She made a motion
to button her pants and he said, “‘whoa.’â€
He asked her what she was going to do and she said, “button my
pants.†Officer Mohler said, “‘what’s
that right there?’†and picked up the cellophane and showed it to her. He said, “‘were you going to step on
this?’†Officer Mohler handcuffed
her. Defendant did not know who the
object belonged to, and did not know what it was. Officer Mohler performed a field sobriety
test on her. Defendant operates a
transportation company which transports Regional Center clients who have mental
and behavioral disorders. She has
between nine and 12 employees, and all but two of them drive the cars for her
company. Defendant believed the wallet
may have belonged to a client named Cody, who had history of drug use and who
had been in the vehicle several days before.
In
rebuttal, Officer Mohler testified he saw the pink wallet in defendant’s hand
when she got out of the car, and saw her discard something from the wallet
which landed near his right foot. He did
not perform field sobriety tests on defendant, and she did not mention she had
been throwing up. Officer Mohler did not
show defendant the package, nor did he ask her what it was.
Sergeant
Michelle Figueroa, who had responded to the scene to conduct a person search of
defendant, testified that defendant told her the object was not hers and that
Cody had given it to her to hold for him.
Sergeant Figueroa did not write this statement in her report because it
was a vehicle impound report.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 23,
2012, defendant was charged with one count of
violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The jury found defendant guilty as
charged. The trial court found defendant
eligible for sentencing under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1210.1), suspended
imposition of sentence, put defendant on formal probation for 12 months under
Proposition 36, and ordered her to undergo substance abuse treatment.
We
appointed counsel to represent defendant
on appeal. After examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court
to independently review the record. On
February 22, 2013, we advised defendant she had 30 days within which to
personally submit any contentions or
issues she wished us to consider. To
date, we have received no response. We
have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues
exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110;
441.)
DISPOSITION
The order
is affirmed.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED.
JOHNSON,
J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD,
Acting P. J.
CHANEY, J.
