Filed 9/13/16 P. v. Johnson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LABRIAN TODD JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant. F071650

(Kern Super. Ct. No. BF157516A)



### OPINION

THE COURT *
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Brian M.

McNamara and Colette M. Humphrey, Judges. †

Jin H. Kim , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

† Judge McNamara presided over the Penal Code section 1538.5 motion; Judge Humphrey presided over the sentencing hearing.2

. INTRODUCTION
Appellant/defendant Labrian Todd Johnson pleaded no contest to felon in

p ossession of a firearm and was sentenced to the lower term of 16 months. On appeal,
his appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citation s to the
record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. ( People

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). ) We affirm.

FACTS
At 10:30 p.m. on September 20, 2014, Officers Martinez and Ornelas were on
patrol in Bakersfield. A silver 20 0 1 Pontiac Grand Prix was driving in front of their
patrol car. When the car moved into the left lane, Officer Martinez saw that the center
brake light was not working and believed that was a violation of Vehicle Code section
24603, subdivision (b). 1 The officers conducted a traffic stop. Defendant was the driver
and sole occupan t. 2
Officer Martinez approached the passenger side of defendant’s car and smelled the
strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from inside. He saw a clear plastic cup with ice
spilled on the front passenger floorboard. The officers determined defendant was o n probation with search terms. Martinez asked defendant if he had anything illegal in the

1 Vehicle Code section 24603 sets forth the general requirements for a vehicle’s brake lights, also known as “stoplamps.” In a similar case, In re Justin K. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 695 explained that “federal safety standards require [a] car to have a supplemental stoplamp” mounted inside a vehicle’s rear window, a driver is required to maintain a car in “ ‘ good working order, ’ ” and the f ailure to do so provided an objectively legal basis for an officer’s decision to conduct a traffic stop when a vehicle’s center brake light was not working. ( Id . at pp. 699

– 700 , fn. omitted .)

2 Defendant entered a plea and there was no preliminary hearing. The facts in the preceding paragraph are from the evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.3

.

car. Defendant said no, and that Martinez could check. Defendant’s car was searched and an operable firearm was found under the driver’s seat. 3
The charges

On Dece mber 26, 2014, an information was filed in the Superior Court of Kern
County charging defendant with count I, felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,
§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), 4 and count II, felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd.
(a)(1)), wit h an enhancement for count II for being armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd.
(a)(1), and two prior pris on term enhancements.
Motion to suppress
On December 29, 2014, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and argued

the warrantless s earch was illega l. The People filed opposition and argued defendant was
subject to a probation search condition and also consented to the search of his car.
On January 28 and 29, 2015, the court conducted the evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress evidenc e. Officer Martinez testified as set forth above. Defense counsel argued the traffic stop was illegal because defendant’s side brake lights
were operable, and the center light was not required. The prosecutor replied Martinez
reasonably believed defenda nt violated the Vehicle Code when he conducted the traffic

stop. The court denied the suppression motion.

Plea and sentence On February 6, 2015, defendant entered into a negotiated disposition and pleaded
no contest to count I, felon in possession of a fi rearm, for the lower term of 16 months. The court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the remaining charges and

alle gations.

3 The preceding paragraph is from defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

4 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.4

.

On May 5, 2015, defendant, who had been released on bond, failed to appear for
the sentencing hearing and a no

- bail be nch warrant was issued.
On May 14, 2015, defendant appeared and was sentenced to the lower term of 16
months in pri son. On May 19, 2015, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the denial of his
suppression motion.

DISCUSSION
As noted above, defendant’s counsel has filed a Wende brief with this court. The

brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that defendant was
advised he could file h is own brief with this court. By letter on September 15, 2015, we
invited defendant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable
factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.