1 Filed 12/4/14 P. v. Alves CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. BRENT D'VAUG HN ALVES, Defendant and Appellant. E060805 (Super.Ct.No. FVA1302052)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Sa n Bernardino County. Colin J. Bilash, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas K. Macomber, under appointm ent by the Court of Appeal, and Brent D’Vaughn Alves, in pro. per., fo r Defendant and Appellant. No appearance fo r Respondent. Defendant and Appellant Br ent D’Vaughn Alves pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) 1 and possession of marijuana

1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.2 (§ 11359). Defendant add itionally admitted having suffe red two prior narcotics convictions (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)) and four pr ior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to his agreemen t with the court, and over th e People’s objection, the court imposed an aggregate senten ce of six years’ incarceration, suspended, and granted defendant felony probation for three years. After counsel filed the notice of appeal, th is court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the fact s, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Defendant was offered the opportun ity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done. In his brief, defe ndant argues the court erred in denying his section 1538.5 motion, erred in denying his section 995 motion, and that defendant was denied an investigator and adequate law library access. We affirm the judgment.
FACUTAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND On November 13, 2013, a Rialto Police Officer observed defendant in an alley with an open beer can in his hand. As the officer drove closer, defendant placed the can on the curb next to him. Under the City of Rialto Municipal Code it is unlawful for any individual to have an open alcohol contai ner in public. The o fficer walked up to defendant and asked him for identification. Defendant gave the officer identification. The officer asked defendant what he was doi ng. Defendant responded he was having a beer. Defendant had a white plastic grocery bag directly at his side which he said belonged to him.3 The officer ran defendant’s name throu gh dispatch and conf irmed defendant had three valid misdemeanor warrants for his a rrest. The officer placed defendant under arrest, put handcuffs on him, searched his pockets, and put him in the officer’s patrol vehicle. Defendant asked if he coul d give the white plastic bag containing his possessions to his sister. However, defendant’s sister was not at the location of defendant’s arrest at that time. Defendant said his CD pl ayer and CDs were inside the bag. The officer searched the ba g prior to agreeing to surrend er it to defendant’s sister in order to ensure nothing illegal or potentia lly dangerous was inside . The officer also wanted to inventory the contents to ensure a ll the items were given to defendant’s sister to protect against accusations of theft. Along with defendant’s CD player and CDs, the officer found two vials inside the bag containing four baggies of what the office r suspected was marijuana. In addition, the other found a bag containing 14 smaller bagg ies of what the officers suspected was methamphetamine. The suspected metham phetamine field tested positive for methamphetamine. The officer also found a marijuana cigar or blunt. The court granted defendant’s motion to re present himself prior to the preliminary hearing. Defendant filed a number of mo tions, including a motion to dismiss, two demurrers, a motion to suppress the evidence, and a motion to set aside the information. The court denied defendant’s demurrers a nd motion to set aside the information. On January 31, 2014, the court began a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress at which the arresting officer testified. On February 4, 2014, th e court continued the4 hearing at which defenda nt and his sister testified. De fendant testified he was sitting on the steps of his apartment adjace nt to a private alleyway when the officer contacted him. He was not drinking a beer. The court de nied defendant’s motions to suppress and dismiss. On February 11, 2014, over the People’s objection, defendant pled no contest to the sheet and to a misdemeanor driving under the influence charge in another case in return for a suspended six-y ear jail sentence and grant of three years probation.
DISCUSSION Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the r ecord for potential error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:

HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.

RICHLI J.