Filed 8/2/13 P. v. Parker CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLIE PAR KER,

Defendant and Appellant. B245059

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA 079401)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Steven R. Van Sicklen, Judge. Affirmed.

Joy A. Maulitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *2

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Charlie
Parker pled no contest to charges of being a felon in possessi on of a firearm and of
driving with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.08 percent. Pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting that

this court review the record and determine whether an y arguable issues exist on appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In an eight

- count amended information, defendant was charged with two counts of
possession of a firearm by a felon, possessi on of a concealed weapon in his vehicle,
possession of ammunition by a felon, carrying a loaded firearm, resisting a peace officer,
driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving while having a 0.08 percent or higher
blood alcohol content. A prior se rious or violent felony was alleged and two prior
convictions for which defendant did not remain free from custody for a period of five
years were alleged.
Defendant initially pled not guilty. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence
pursuant to Pen al Code section 1538.5 based on the contention that he was searched
without probable cause.
At a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, Officer Eric Williams testified
that at approximately 3:00 a.m. on October 20, 2010, he observed defendant driving
erratically. Defendant swerved from the number 3 lane into the number 1 lane and then
back to the number 3 lane. Defendant did not signal any of his lane changes. Defendant
was speeding. After defendant was stopped, Williams’s partner began administeri ng field sobriety tests. Defendant fled. Defendant was located and his blood was collected.

A nine

- millimeter handgun was found in defendant’s vehicle.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant changed his plea

to no contest for the following two charges: being a felon in possession of a firearm and
driving with a blood alcohol level of greater than 0.08 percent. The parties agreed that

defendant would receive a four

- year state prison sentence in return for his plea.3

Defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison. The court dismissed the
remaining allegations in the interest of justice.

DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the entire record, we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied
with her responsibilities and no arguab le issue exists. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th

106, 123

- 124; Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

FLIER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

GRIMES, J.