P. v. Corry

Filed 9/7/06 P. v. Corry CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victoria M. Chavez, Judge. Affirmed.

Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Joseph Corry (defendant) was detained by Los Angeles Police Officers for a traffic violation and was unable to provide a valid driver's license. During the detention, the Officers discovered that there were outstanding warrants for his arrest. Based on the warrants, they arrested defendant and, during a search incident to that arrest, one of the Officers discovered cocaine on his person.

Defendant was charged in Count 1 of an information with possession of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The information also alleged that defendant had a prior conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d). Defendant pled not guilty and denied the strike allegation.

Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence, but the trial court denied the motion. When his subsequent jury trial ended in a mistrial, he withdrew his prior plea and pled no contest to Count 1. The trial court dismissed the strike allegation, denied probation, and sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months. He was given 16 days of custody credit and eight days of conduct credit.

On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress on the grounds that, despite his timely demand for the production of the warrants upon which his arrest was based, the prosecution failed to produce those warrants at the suppression hearing in violation of his rights under the so-called Harvey/Madden rule.[1]

We hold that the prosecution's failure to produce the warrants at the suppression hearing did not constitute reversible error because there was sufficient alternative evidence of probable cause to arrest introduced at the suppression hearing to justify defendant's arrest, and the subsequent search, under the Fourth Amendment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Defendant's Arrest and Booking

The following facts relating to defendant's arrest and booking are taken from the evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. On April 12, 2005, Los Angeles Police Officer Matthew Ensley was on uniform patrol with his partner when he observed a vehicle with no front license plate. The Officers conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle. As soon as the driver, who was later identified as defendant, pulled over, he immediately exited his vehicle.

The vehicle had a rear license plate, and Officer Ensley â€