1

Filed 5/26/23 P. v. Trevino 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MATTHEW EDWARD TREVINO,

Defendant and Appellant.

C097633

(Super. Ct. No. 62175265)

Appointed counsel for defendant Matthew Edward Trevino asked this court to 

conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

On October 13, 2020, at around 3:40 a.m., Placer County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel 

Hawley was patrolling when he noticed defendant’s Ford Mustang in a dark, secluded
2

corner of a motel parking lot. Deputy Hawley found the car suspicious because it had a 

temporary paper license plate and was present at night at a high crime location. He 

parked about 30 to 40 feet behind the Ford and illuminated its license plate with the 

headlights of his patrol car. Deputy Hawley assumed it was a California license plate. A 

records check of the license plate as a California plate revealed that it belonged to a 

Chevrolet. 

Deputy Hawley shone a spotlight on the Ford and approached the passenger side 

of the vehicle on foot. As Deputy Hawley was approaching the car, he observed 

defendant making “furtive movements” in the driver’s seat, leaning “back and forth from 

left to the right and also reach[ing] in his immediate area around the driver’s seat.” 

Defendant told Deputy Hawley that he was meeting with a friend who was staying at the 

motel but refused to provide the friend’s name. He also informed Deputy Hawley that he 

purchased the car several months ago. 

After the initial questioning, Deputy Hawley walked to the driver’s side of the car

to confirm its vehicle identification number (VIN). As Deputy Hawley was walking 

around the car, defendant again started reaching around the driver’s compartment. 

Deputy Hawley determined the VIN number belonged to a Ford, but it was not registered 

to defendant. Suspecting defendant’s car was an unreported stolen vehicle, Deputy 

Hawley asked defendant to get out of the car in order to question him further, to review 

the car’s registration, and to stop defendant from reaching around the car as Deputy 

Hawley believed defendant was either hiding contraband or accessing weapons. 

When defendant got out of the car, Deputy Hawley noticed several bulges in 

defendant’s jean pockets and waistband area. Based on defendant’s behavior and his 

presence at night at a high crime area, Deputy Hawley pat-searched defendant. He felt a 

plastic bag containing large capsule-sized items and a cylindrical object in defendant’s 

front pant pockets. Defendant agreed that Deputy Hawley could check the contents of his 

pockets. Deputy Hawley found a total of 0.2 grams of cocaine powder, 36 Alprazolam 
3

pills (commonly sold as Xanax), 60.5 grams of methamphetamine, and $218 of cash in 

defendant’s pockets. Inside defendant’s car, Deputy Hawley found a digital scale, a cell 

phone, and a glass pipe with burnt residue which was commonly used to smoke 

methamphetamine. 

After Deputy Hawley advised him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 

384 U.S. 436, defendant stated that he was holding the Xanax pills for a friend, and that

he purchased the methamphetamine for his personal use. Defendant further admitted he 

had sold methamphetamine in the past. With permission from defendant, Deputy Hawley

searched the cell phone and discovered text messages relating to the sale of Xanax pills 

and narcotics. 

Towards the end of the investigation, Deputy Hawley looked at the license plate 

again and realized it was a Texas plate. The Texas temporary license plate looked 

substantially similar to a California plate. The word “Texas” was printed above the 

license numbers in a smaller font. Deputy Hawley did not believe he could read the word 

“Texas” from 40 feet away. He did not recall that defendant either informed him the car 

had a Texas license plate or provided him with any documentation of the car. A 

subsequent records check showed that the Texas license plate number was registered to a 

Ford Mustang. 

The People charged defendant with sale of Xanax (Health & Saf. Code, § 11375, 

subd. (b)(1), count 1; statutory section citations that follow are to the Health and Safety 

Code), transportation of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11379, subd. (a), count 2), 

possession for sale of methamphetamine (§ 11378, count 3), possession of cocaine 

(§ 11350, subd. (a), count 4), and possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364, subd. (a), 

count 5). As to counts 1 through 3, the People further alleged that at the time of the 

commission of these offenses, defendant was released from custody on bail or on his own 

recognizance in a different case. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b).) 
4

Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained by the Placer County Sheriff’s 

Office, arguing that Deputy Hawley’s search and seizure was unlawful and the evidence 

obtained therefrom was fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court denied the motion, 

finding Deputy Hawley’s mistaken belief that defendant’s car had a California license 

plate was reasonable and held in good faith. 

Defendant pleaded no contest to count 2 in exchange for a three-year split 

sentence, with one year in custody and the remainder on mandatory supervision. The 

People dismissed the other charges. The trial court denied probation and imposed the 

middle term of three years on count 2, ordering defendant to serve one year in custody 

and two years on mandatory supervision. The trial court also awarded custody credits 

and imposed and stayed fines and fees. 

Defendant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to 

review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right 

to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. 

More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. 

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no 

arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
5

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

 

HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 

MAURO, J.

 

MESIWALA, J.