Filed 10/12/21 P. v. Anderson CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ISAIAH ANDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B306100

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. LA089839)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Alan K. Schneider, Judge. Affirmed. 

Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

Defendant Isaiah Anderson appeals from the denial of his 

Penal Code1 section 1538.5 motion.2 Defendant pleaded nolo 

contendere to a second degree burglary count in violation of 

section 459 and admitted a prior strike pursuant to section 667, 

subdivision (d) and 1170.12, subdivision (b). Defendant’s 

appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues and requesting this 

court to review the record and determine whether any arguable 

issue exists on appeal. We have done so and affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We set forth the facts (largely taken from the hearing on 

defendant’s suppression motion) and procedural history only 

relevant to this appeal. 

On January 10, 2019, officers from the Los Angeles Police 

Department (LAPD) arrived at the scene of a traffic collision 

where they found defendant on a grassy area, injured, and being 

attended by paramedics. The accident involved a vehicle crossing 

over a boulevard and colliding into several parked vehicles facing 

the opposite direction causing some to relocate on top of each 

other. The driver’s vehicle was no longer drivable and was 

blocking traffic lanes. It ultimately had to be towed. 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The record does not contain a certificate of probable 

cause and defendant’s notice of appeal states that defendant “in 

propria-person[a] hereby appeals his conviction pursuant to 

Pen. Code, §1538.5 (M).” Our review is thus limited to whether 

the trial court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion 

and “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect 

the plea’s validity.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1), (4).)
3

The officers spoke with a group of bystanders. A bystander 

indicated that defendant had been driving the vehicle; another

bystander, as confirmed by another, told an officer that defendant 

had put “an item of some sort in a nearby bush.” A paramedic 

told one of the officers that defendant appeared to be under the 

influence.

One of the officers then retrieved a black cap from a nearby 

bush that contained four pill bottles; defendant admitted the hat 

was his. The bottles were sealed, and had pieces of paper on top; 

the papers did not recite any individual’s name. The bottles did 

not “have a prescription on them.” “Duomo Pharmacy” was 

written on one of the bottles, although upon cross-examination, 

one of the officers stated that the address may have been on a 

check the officers later found in defendant’s vehicle. One of the 

officers testified that “two of them” (presumably referencing 

bottles) contained alprazolam and oxycodone—both prescription 

drugs—and another also recalled the bottles contained oxycodone 

and “hydrocodone.” One of the bottles referenced “morphine.” 

Based on the “significance of the crash,” the bystanders’ 

information about the cap, the paramedic’s observation, and the 

narcotics in the cap, the officers searched the vehicle for evidence 

of driving under the influence and contraband. They found a 

paycheck lying on the floor on the driver’s side under the steering 

wheel. The paycheck was made out to “GENCO” and recited the 

address of Duomo Pharmacy on Victory Boulevard in 

North Hollywood. 

The officers then called the LAPD’s Hollywood Division and 

learned there had been a burglary earlier that morning at the 

Duomo Pharmacy at the same address as that recited on the 

paycheck found in defendant’s vehicle, an address a few miles 
4

away from the scene of the traffic collision. They also learned a 

check and pharmaceuticals had been stolen during the burglary. 

The officers retrieved surveillance video taken at the 

pharmacy during the burglary.3 The video showed two large 

males, one black,

4 and that one suspect had a gray shirt covering 

his face and the other had a blue jacket with a bandana covering 

the lower half of his face. The officer testified that he could tell 

that one of the suspects is black because he could “see part of the 

neck at one point during surveillance.” The officer testified about 

his comparison of clothes (including a “bright pair of yellow latex 

gloves”) and shoes depicted in the video with photographs of 

defendant taken at the scene of the traffic collision and “removed” 

from him at the hospital, as well as photographs of items found in 

his car at the scene of the collision. He concluded from those 

comparisons that “Mr. Anderson what [sic] involved in the 

burglary.” 

The officer also spoke with a pharmacist at Duomo 

Pharmacy, who said only one of the four bottles found in 

defendant’s cap was from that pharmacy based on his review of 

the yellow label on the bottle and the “NDC” number. The 

pharmacist was able to identify the vendor of the drugs and 

confirmed that the NDC number matched the vendor’s invoice. 

Because the date reflected expired drugs, the bottle would have 

been stolen from the pharmacy’s recycle bin for return to the 

manufacturer. 

On February 19, 2019, the People filed an information 

against defendant and alleged two counts of second degree 

3 That video is not in our record. 

4 Defendant is Black. 
5

burglary in violation of section 459, a prior strike pursuant to 

sections 667, subdivision (d) and 1170.12, subdivision (b), and 

two prison priors under section 667.5, subdivision (b). After the 

trial court granted defendant’s request to represent himself, 

defendant pleaded not guilty to these counts and allegations. 

Shortly thereafter, the public defender was “reappointed” to 

represent defendant. Ultimately, however, the trial court 

allowed defendant to represent himself, including at the 

suppression hearing and when he pleaded nolo contendere to 

second degree burglary and admitted the prior strike.

There are two motions to suppress in the record. On 

July 12, 2019, defendant in propria persona filed a motion to 

suppress evidence of a “check, yellow gloves, black gloves [and] 

gray shirt.” Defendant claimed that the officers’ search of his 

vehicle shortly after defendant was involved in the traffic 

collision was pretextual. Specifically, defendant challenged the 

officers’ purported suspicion that defendant had driven under the 

influence because in defendant’s words, his vehicle “reeked of 

marijuana.”5 He also claimed that the officers conducted an 

unconstitutional inventory search after they impounded his 

vehicle. 

On January 17, 2020, defendant filed what appears to be a 

new motion to suppress pursuant to section 1538.5. In that 

motion, he sought to exclude a check found in his car after the 

officers found defendant at the scene of a traffic collision and they 

5 Apparently, a police report referenced an odor of 

marijuana, but the trial court eschewed relying on that report, 

which it said was not in evidence. The court reiterated that it 

was not considering that reference in ruling on the motion to 

suppress.
6

perceived a “strong odor of marijuana” causing them to suspect 

defendant had driven under the influence. Although it is not 

entirely clear, defendant appears also to have sought exclusion of 

the prescription pill bottles found in his hat near where he was 

lying after the collision. He also sought exclusion of unidentified 

“seized items from the vehicle” during the search after the vehicle 

was impounded. 

The People opposed both motions. The record includes only 

one ruling, on February 26, 2020, denying defendant’s motion to 

suppress. 

On February 28, 2020, defendant pleaded nolo contendere 

to one second degree burglary count and one strike. On 

May 11, 2020, the trial court sentenced him to 32 months in 

state prison, based on the 16-month low term for his burglary 

conviction and 16 months for his admitted strike with 16 months 

of actual custody credit and 16 months of good time/work time 

credit.6 Defendant filed his notice of appeal on the same day. 

6 On February 28, 2020, after denying defendant’s 

suppression motion, the trial court discussed an open plea and 

stated that if defendant put off sentencing until May 2nd, he 

would “never have to go to state prison immediately because you 

will have credit for time served, and I will release you directly 

from court to go to the parole office.” Upon standby counsel’s 

suggestion, the trial court then corrected the sentencing date to 

Monday, May 4th. Sentencing actually took place on May 11th, 

before a different judge, because defendant had been quarantined 

for several days. Defendant received “credit for time served 

today.” 
7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this 

matter. After examining the record, counsel filed a Wende brief 

raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently 

review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) 

Defendant was advised by this court of the opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief; he filed no brief. We have examined the 

entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has 

complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue 

exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110–111; Wende, 

at p. 441; see also Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.) 

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J. CRANDALL, J.*

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.