Filed 4/2/13 P. v. Peterson CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and pa rties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for pu blication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered publi shed for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH M. PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant. B242410

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA075392-02)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Su perior Court of Los Angeles County, Lawrence J. Mira, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Joseph M. Peterson pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance and appeals from the denial of his motion to suppre ss. Our independent re view of the record reveals no arguable issue that wo uld aid Peterson. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROC EDURAL SUMMARY Deputy Sheriff Guillermo Loza was on ro utine patrol at the intersection of Topanga Canyon Boulevard and Lanark Street at 0202 hours on July 1, 2 010 when he saw a red Ford F-350 pickup truck speeding southbound on Topanga while straddling the

lane lines. He believed the vehicle was trave ling 15 miles an hour over the posted limit. He and his partner, Deput y Justin Solomon, initia ted a traffic stop of the pickup. Deputy Loza walked up to the passenger side of the pi ckup. He saw the driver lean down toward the right floorboard area, then suddenly sit back in his seat. The deputy saw a baggy containing a crystallized s ubstance resembling methamphe tamine protruding from underneath the plastic driver’s side floor mat. The baggy was within arm’s reach of the passenger, but the deputy did not see the passenger make any downward movements. Deputy Solomon detained the dr iver, searched him for narco tics, and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car. Deputy Solomo n then took the passenger, appellant, out of the pickup and searched him for narcotic s and weapons. Deputy Loza saw Deputy Solomon retrieve a plastic bindle contai ning a crystallized s ubstance resembling methamphetamine from appellant’s right zippe r short pocket. The bindle was booked

into evidence. Based on the initial observa tion of a crystallized substance resembling methamphetamine taken from his pocket, ap pellant was detained and arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Appellant was charged with possession of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subd ivision (a) and it was alleged that he had served a prior prison term w ithin the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the preliminary hearing, the cour t heard and denied appellant’s motion to suppress the drugs seized from his pocket. A ppellant was held to answer, arraigned, and pled not guilty. He then renewed the motion to suppress, which was denied. Appellant3 waived his constitutional rights and pled no contest. He was placed on summary probation under the Proposition 36 alternative sentencing scheme. He filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent appella nt on appeal. Appo inted counsel filed an appellate brief raising no issues, but aski ng this court to inde pendently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442. We advised appellant that he had 30 days w ithin which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or arguments he wished this c ourt to consider. No response has been

received. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442, and find no ar guable issues that could aid appellant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

SUZUKAWA, J.