P. v. Russell
Filed 7/30/07 P. v. Russell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEITH ALLEN RUSSELL, Defendant and Appellant. | C052794 (Super. Ct. No. 05F8565) |
Defendant Keith Allen Russell pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and admitted to prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (d)) and being armed with a firearm in the commission of a drug offense (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a two-year middle term for possession of methamphetamine, two 3-year terms for the prior convictions, and a four-year term for the firearm enhancement for a total term of 12 years in prison. The court also imposed a laboratory analysis fee of $157.50, a restitution fine of $2,400, and a stayed $2,400 parole revocation fine. Two hundred ninety-four days of credit (196 actual time and 98 days good conduct) were awarded.
On November 12, 2005, around 11:17 p.m., defendant was subjected to a traffic stop for having no front license plate on his car. He was found to be on probation and officers searched the car, finding 85.3 grams of methamphetamine, 19.4 grams of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, over $300 in cash, and a loaded .22-caliber firearm. After being given a Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694] warning, defendant said he frequently [a]llowed the Mexicans to use his vehicle to make runs to Turlock, California in exchange for money and dope. He admitted owning the marijuana, but denied knowing about the methamphetamine or the firearm.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 of the opening brief.[1]
Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending: 1) the trial court breached an agreement he had signed when it imposed the firearm enhancement; 2) the traffic stop was unconstitutional because it was based on expired registration when defendant had proper registration at the time; 3) defendant had a verbal understanding with trial counsel that his maximum sentence would be eight years; and 4) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the alleged violation of the plea bargain or the allegedly illegal stop.
Defendants contentions that his plea agreement was violated are not supported by the record. Defendant signed a change of plea form indicating he would be subject to a sentence of up to 14 years, and the trial court advised him that his sentence could be up to 12 years under the plea bargain. The trial court asked defendant, do you admit the allegations [sic] under [Penal Code section] 12022(c), that you were personally armed with a firearm, within the meaning of that section at the time of the commission of the offense? Defendant admitted the allegation. There is nothing in the record to support the contentions that dismissal of the firearm enhancement was part of the plea bargain or that trial counsel told defendant that he would be sentenced to eight years in prison.
Defendants claim that the seizure was illegal was never raised in the proceedings in the trial court and is therefore forfeited. (People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 136.) His contention that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue is not supported by the record. The stop was not based upon expired registration, as defendant contends, but upon a missing front license plate. A missing front license plate is a valid justification for a traffic stop. (People v. Saunders (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1129, 1136-1137). Accordingly, counsel could reasonably conclude that a suppression motion would fail. Defense counsel cannot be faulted for declining to bring a motion that lacks merit. (People v. Williams(1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 681.)
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.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
[1]After the filing of appellants opening brief, counsel for defendant moved to augment the record on appeal, which we granted. Having examined the augmented record, we conclude it contains no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
