Filed 12/5/13 P. v. Scott CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
MICHAEL EUGENE SCOTT,
Defendant and Appellant. B246341
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA359979)

THE COURT: *

Michael Eugene Scott appeals from a j udgment following a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement. According to facts take n from the preliminary hearing transcript, on August 4, 2009, Los Angeles Police Departme nt (LAPD) Detective Joe Alves along with other LAPD officers were investigating narco tics activity in the area of Pico Boulevard and Cloverdale Avenue in the County of Los Angeles. A narcotics suspect named

* BOREN, P. J ., CHAVEZ, J., FERNS, J.†
† Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.2 Howard 1 who had been cited earlier for po ssession of a cocaine pipe was under surveillance. Appellant drove sl owly into the area, pulled his car into a driveway next to Howard, and began speaking to him. Appella nt reached towards the passenger side of the car as Howard looked up and down the street. Howard po inted to LAPD Officers Peko and Barrigan, who were sitting in a police car. Howard sa id something to appellant, and appellant immediately drove away. Detec tive Alves detained appellant pending a narcotics investigation and as ked permission to search appellant’s car. Appellant told Detective Alves to “go ahead and check it.” During the search of appellant’s vehicl e, Detective Alves discovered a release switch for a hidden compartmen t in the dashboard. Detective Alves found inside the passenger side airbag compartment individuall y wrapped baggies of cocaine base. Based on the quantity of cocaine and his over 11 years of experien ce investigating narcotics sales, Detective Alves opined that the co caine was possessed for purposes of sale. Appellant testified that he was driving through the area when Howard flagged him down. He knew Howard asked people for mone y and stopped to talk to him. As he
started to leave he was surro unded by police officers and de tained. He did not give
consent for a search of his vehicle. On January 13, 2010, the trial court de nied appellant’s motion to set aside the information (Pen. Code, § 995), 2 and denied appellant’s mo tion to suppress (§ 1538.5, subd. (i)). On October 5, 2010, after consulting with counsel, appellant pled guilty to one count of possession for purposes of sale of cocai ne base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5, and one count of transportation of co caine base in violation of Health and Safety Code sec tion 11352, subdivision (a). Ap pellant also admitted having
suffered one strike under the “Three Strike s” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i),

1 Mr. Howard’s first name was not given at the preliminary hearing. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and having served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court senten ced appellant to state prison for six years. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of ha beas corpus directly to the Court of Appeal seeking permission to file a belated a ppeal. The request was denied by this court on February 28, 2011 (B230828) . On November 1, 2011, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supr eme Court. On Januar y 15, 2013, the trial court granted a certificate of probable cause re garding the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and ordered the clerk to accept as ti mely filed appellant’s notice of appeal. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the j udgment in which he checked the preprinted boxes indicating, “This appeal is based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence
under Penal Code section 1538.5 ” and “This appeal challenges the validity of the plea or admission.” Appellant also listed ineffective a ssistance of counsel as grounds for seeking a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel file d an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgement that he had been unable to find any arguable issues. On July 10, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to pe rsonally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. We have reviewed the entire record on ap peal. We note that the trial court denied appellant’s section 1538.5 motion to suppre ss evidence of the co caine base that was found in appellant’s car, stating that “the next issue is whether or not there was consent, and the court painstakingly listened to all of the testimony with regard to everything that happened from the time that the defendant was stopped until the time that the narcotics were found, and in that I find some things of interest and one of them being that the defendant indicates that he did not give consent for the officers to sear ch the vehicle. [¶]
And the court has to then look at the totality of the circumst ances as to what happened at
the location. The officers re quested consent, and according to the defendant he would not have given consent. We can’t skip over the fact that the drugs were in the vehicle and4 they weren’t in the glove co mpartment or in some other open compartment. The items were found in a secret compar tment in the car which sort of negates the argument, well, he never would have given consent if he knew th at he had drugs in his car. The fact that the defendant may have believed that the drugs were not going to be found is sufficient to negate that argument. [¶] So it’s this cour t’s belief already stating that the court found that the officers’ testimony were credible that the defendant di d give consent to search the
vehicle and that the items were found in a secr et compartment. [¶] . . . Therefore, the court finds . . . that there was a consent by the defendant and therefore the motion to suppress under 1538.5 is denied.” Given thes e findings, the court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. ( People v. Valenzuela (1999) 74 Cal.App. 4th 1202, 1206–1207 [“In reviewing the denial of [a motion to su ppress evidence] we must view the record in the light most favorable to respondent [cita tion], uphold all express and implied factual findings of the trial court that are supported by substantial evidence , then independently apply the proper federal constitutional st andards to those facts [citations]”].)
This court has reviewed the merits of a ppellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a notice of appe al even though appella nt entered a guilty plea as a result of a plea bargain. A defendant as serting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate: (1) that couns el’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that defe ndant suffered prejudice from the deficiency. ( People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1126.) A lthough the filing of appellant’s appeal was delayed, appellant cannot show th at he suffered prejudice. Appellant shows no other error and no prejudice. Appellant was represented by counsel th roughout the proceedings. He was fully apprised of his constitutional rights and the conse quences of his plea. He expressly waived his rights, and his waiv er was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. He specifically admitted transportation of cocai ne base and possession of coca ine base for sale. There was no error in the sentence, which was in acc ord with applicable law and the negotiated disposition. Appellant received a fair hearing and due process.5 We have examined the entire record and ar e satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities a nd that no arguable issues exist. ( People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.