P. v. Moore

Filed 11/14/08 P. v. Moore 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Petersen, Judge. Affirmed

Dabney B. Finch, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Robert Daniel Moore was charged with (1) possessing methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) (count 1); (2) being under the influence of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11550, subdivision (a) (count 2); and (3) resisting a peace officer under Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a) (count 3).

After a preliminary hearing, the trial court found insufficient cause to believe defendant guilty of count 3; the court ordered defendant discharged as to that count. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1. The court imposed the low term of one year four months, and then suspended execution of the sentence, granting probation for 36 months. Thereafter, the court dismissed count 2 in the interest of justice.

On May 8, 2008, defendant, in propria persona, filed a notice of appeal. The notice specifies that the appeal follows a guilty plea, and is based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence.^[1] The notice also challenges the validity of the plea. The notice additionally states that the criminal nature of charges, unresonabl[e] search and siezure [sic] as the other basis of defendants appeal. Defendants request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.

II

FACTS^[2]

Two wardens from the Department of Fish and Game took defendant into custody on a dirt road in Hemet, after he refused to produce identification. One of them hit defendant with a tactical expandable baton when defendant tried to get away. The wardens searched defendant and found methamphetamine in his pocket, which, including the plastic baggie, weighed 0.03 grams.

The responding sheriffs deputy noticed that defendant was fidgety and displayed eyelid flutter. Defendants pulse was 120 beats per minute. After estimating defendants pupils were dilated to approximately five millimeters, the deputy took defendant into custody for being under the influence of methamphetamine.

III

ANALYSIS

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MILLER

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] It appears from the record that no motion to suppress was filed in this case.

^[2] Because defendant pled guilty, the facts are derived from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.