1

Filed 11/17/23 P. v. Holt CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERIC GORDON HOLT,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A166868

 (Lake County

 Super. Ct. No. 

 CR961838-B)

Appellant Eric Gordon Holt appeals from a judgment following his no 

contest plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, 

subd. (a)(1)).1 Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this 

court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are 

any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right 

to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he 

believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant 

has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable 

issues, and affirm.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

BACKGROUND

Information

In May 2022, appellant was charged by information with possession of 

methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11370.1, subd. (a)); two counts of carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle 

(§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)); being a felon in possession of a firearm and

ammunition (§§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 30305, subd. (a)(1)); and misdemeanor 

possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). A 

codefendant was also charged. Appellant pled not guilty to all counts. 

Motion to Suppress

In July 2022, appellant and his codefendant filed a motion to suppress 

(§ 1538.5). Deputy Michael Nakahara was the sole witness at the 

suppression hearing. About 10:00 p.m. on September 6, 2021, Nakahara 

pulled over a car on Highway 20 because it had illegally tinted windows and 

appeared to have an expired registration. Appellant’s codefendant was the 

driver and appellant was the sole passenger. Nakahara confirmed the 

registration had expired and could not determine who the owner was. The 

driver claimed the car was hers but could not provide proof of ownership. 

The driver’s license was not valid and she appeared to be under the influence

of a controlled substance. Appellant told Nakahara he had outstanding 

arrest warrants. 

Nakahara impounded the vehicle because the registration was expired 

and the car was parked on the shoulder of Highway 20 in front of a business, 

impeding pedestrian access. The People submitted a photograph showing the 

location of the parked car. Before the vehicle was impounded, Nakahara 

conducted an inventory search pursuant to department policy that, prior to 

impound, officers document valuables and other notable items in a vehicle on 
3

a California Highway Patrol form. During the inventory search, Nakahara 

found drugs and a gun. 

In an oral ruling followed by a written order, the trial court denied the 

motion to suppress, finding appellant lacked standing to challenge the search 

as a passenger; the traffic stop and detention were valid; and the vehicle 

impound and inventory search were reasonable. 

No Contest Plea and Sentencing

In August 2022, appellant pled no contest to being a felon in possession 

of a firearm, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The plea agreement 

stipulated appellant would be sentenced to probation for two years with a 

maximum of 364 days in county jail. 

In December 2022, the court suspended imposition of sentence and 

placed appellant on probation for two years. The court ordered appellant 

serve 364 days in custody, and allowed day-for-day credit for participation 

and successful completion of a residential substance abuse treatment 

program. The court found appellant did not have the ability to pay fines or 

fees. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the 

proceedings. The motion to suppress was properly denied. (People v. 

Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756, 761 [“As part of their ‘ “community 

caretaking functions,” ’ police officers may constitutionally impound vehicles 

that ‘jeopardize . . . public safety’ ”]; Halajian v. D & B Towing (2012) 

209 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [impound of unregistered truck “promoted public safety 

by preventing the truck from being operated on public highways and streets 

while it remained unregistered”]; People v. Quick (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1006, 

1011 [“When a vehicle is lawfully impounded, an inventory search pursuant 
4

to an established, standardized procedure does not violate the Fourth 

Amendment.”].)

Appellant completed a plea form that described the constitutional 

rights he was waiving by entering a no contest plea, the trial court confirmed 

appellant understood he was giving up those rights, and the court found 

appellant freely and intelligently waived those rights. Defense counsel 

stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Appellant was advised of the 

consequences of his plea. The sentence was consistent with the plea 

agreement. 

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered custody credit “for 

two days previously served, two behavioral, total four.” However, the 

sentencing minutes reflect only two days credit, with no behavior credits. We 

will direct the sentencing minutes amended to reflect four days of custody 

credit. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the 

sentencing minutes to reflect the judgment of four days of custody credits.

SIMONS, J.

We concur. 

JACKSON, P. J.

CHOU, J. 

(A166868)