Court Opinion

ID: 9899911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 21:05:15.395808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:54.112932
License: Public Domain

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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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,
                                                                        A166868
 v.
 ERIC GORDON HOLT,                                                      (Lake County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No.
           Defendant and Appellant.
                                                                        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.

                                                               1
                                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

                                        2
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

                                         3
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)

                                       4