P. v. Sherman
Filed 8/22/06 P. v. Sherman CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY CHARLES SHERMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | H028702 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC454542) |
Statement of the Case
Defendant Larry Charles Sherman appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine, carrying a concealed dirk or dagger, and possession of drug paraphernalia and admitted having two strike convictions and serving four prior prison terms. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd. (a), 11364; Pen Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1538.5, 12020, subd. (a)(4).)
He claims the court erred in denying his motion to suppress and imposing a concurrent term for possession of drug paraphernalia rather than staying it.
We reverse the judgment.
Facts
On Friday, May 21, 2004, around 5:40 p.m., Officers Brett Linden and Eric Frost of the San Jose Police Department were on routine patrol. They entered the parking lot at Walgreen's on Meridian and San Carlos in San Jose. Officer Linden noticed defendant about 75 feet away, sitting in a van that had been backed into a stall facing the store. The parking lot was 60 percent full, and there were some men but mostly women walking to and from the store. Officer Linden did not see defendant make eye contact with anyone. However, he thought defendant was focusing on women. Based on his experience as a sexual assault investigator, which included 60 to 80 cases of indecent exposure, at least a third of which involved men masturbating in parking lots while looking at women, Officer Linden suspected defendant might be exposing himself.
The officers drove directly in front of defendant's van. Because defendant did not track them as they went by, Officer Linden became even more suspicious. The officers parked three stalls away. Officer Linden noticed the upper part of defendant's body move a little. He could not see defendant's hands or lap but surmised that defendant was â€
