1

Filed 3/22/13 P. v. Jorrin CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDUARDO MANUEL JORRIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C071926

(Super. Ct. No. 12F01200)

Appointed counsel for defendant Eduardo Manuel Jorrin asked this court to 

review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in 

a disposition more favorable to defendant, we shall affirm the judgment. 

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) 

On February 14, 2012, Los Rios College Police Officer Charles Burnett was 

driving his vehicle on patrol at Sacramento City College. When he entered the parking 

lot designated for paratransit drop-off and handicapped parking, Burnett saw defendant 
2

making an unsafe turn in his vehicle. Burnett activated the overhead lights on his patrol 

car and drove his vehicle until it was front bumper to front bumper with defendant’s 

vehicle. 

While stopped, bumper to bumper, with defendant’s car, Burnett saw defendant 

moving around a lot with his hands below the dashboard and looking into his lap. 

Defendant then drove his car in reverse with Burnett pursuing him until defendant’s car 

was blocked into a corner of the parking lot. Burnett then got out of his patrol vehicle 

and approached the passenger side of defendant’s car. 

As he approached defendant’s car, Burnett smelled marijuana, saw a glass jar 

containing marijuana on the floorboard of the car, and asked to see defendant’s driver’s 

license. Defendant told Burnett he did not have permission to search his car, and handed 

Burnett his driver’s license. Burnett then asked defendant to step out of the car. 

When defendant got out of the car, Burnett noticed a bulge in defendant’s pocket. 

Burnett attempted to perform a pat-down search of defendant, then attempted to place a 

control hold on defendant by taking a hold of defendant’s hands. Initially, defendant 

resisted Burnett, but ultimately complied and Burnett was able to place defendant in 

handcuffs. However, when Burnett tried to spread defendant’s feet, defendant began 

kicking at Burnett. 

Once defendant stopped resisting the search, he told Burnett that he had “a little 

bit of weed.” Burnett responded: “if that’s all this is about, you need to relax and be 

compliant for a few more seconds.” Burnett then removed an unloaded revolver from the 

heavy bulge in defendant’s front pocket. A subsequent search of defendant’s car revealed 

a glass jar containing marijuana, and bullets were found in defendant’s shoe. 

Defendant was arrested and charged with unlawfully bringing a firearm to a 

college campus (Pen. Code, § 626.9, subd. (i)), unlawfully carrying a concealed revolver 
3

within his vehicle (id., § 25400, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of not more than 28.5 

grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). It was further alleged that 

“both the firearm, and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that 

firearm, were in the immediate possession of . . . defendant and were readily accessible to 

. . . defendant, and the firearm was loaded; and, further . . . defendant is not listed with 

the Department of Justice pursuant to Penal Code section 11106[, subdivision] (c)(1) as 

the registered owner of that particular firearm, within the meaning of Penal Code section 

25400[, subdivision] (c)(6).” 

Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence found as a result of the search he 

argued was unlawful. The trial court heard defendant’s motion along with the 

preliminary hearing; the court denied defendant’s motion to suppress and defendant was 

held to answer to all charges and allegations. Defendant then pleaded no contest to 

carrying a concealed revolver in his vehicle in exchange for a conditional promise of no 

state prison, five years of formal probation, and a dismissal of the remaining charges and 

allegations. 

Defendant was later sentenced to five years of formal probation in accordance 

with his plea and the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. In addition, the 

trial court ordered defendant to serve 90 days in county jail, ordered him to pay various 

fines and fees, and awarded defendant six days of custody credit (three days of actual and 

three days of conduct). Defendant appealed with a certificate of probable cause. 

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues 

on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 

right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. 

More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication from 

defendant. 
4

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

 BUTZ , J.

We concur:

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

 MAURO , J.