Court Opinion

ID: 9904780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 21:02:55.117334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.586145
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/27/23 P. v. Washington CA2/3

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
 opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                     DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 B328736

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                            Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. TA155699
        v.

 TOMMY WASHINGTON, JR.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Affirmed.
     Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                        INTRODUCTION

      After defendant Tommy Washington, Jr. (defendant) was
sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he filed a
notice of appeal in which he checked the preprinted box
indicating his appeal was based on “the denial of a motion
to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” Although
a blank request for a certificate of probable cause is attached to
the notice of appeal, there is no indication in the record that
defendant requested or obtained a certificate of probable cause
from the trial court. However, under California Rules of Court,
rule 8.304(b)(4), a defendant may appeal without a probable
cause certificate if, as here, the appeal is based on the denial of a
motion to suppress evidence.
      Defendant’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief asking
that we conduct an independent review of the record for arguable
issues as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel and this court also informed defendant of his right to file
a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but defendant did not do
so. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.

                         BACKGROUND

       On July 24, 2021, Los Angeles Police Officer Colt Worley
was patrolling the area near San Pedro and 104th Street due to
an increase in shootings and gang activity. After Worley observed
a silver Porsche Cayenne run a red light at 104th Street, he
turned on the patrol car’s lights and sirens and attempted to
conduct a traffic stop while following the Porsche. The Porsche’s
driver did not pull over for another two to three blocks, however.
While Worley was following the Porsche, he saw the driver make
“abrupt furtive movements towards the rear of the vehicle behind

                                  2
the white passenger seat.” Defendant was the Porsche’s driver
and sole occupant.
       Eventually, defendant pulled over and rolled down the
window. Although Officer Worley didn’t find any blunts or
smoking devices in the Porsche, he saw smoke coming from the
vehicle and smelled freshly burned marijuana. Defendant only
got out of the Porsche after he was ordered to do so five times.
When he got out of the vehicle, defendant was holding a lit
cigarette and he didn’t put it out until he was repeatedly ordered
to do so.
       “In plain view through the driver’s side window which was
down,” Officer Worley saw an open backpack on the back seat
containing Ziploc bags with what appeared to be more than 28.5
grams of marijuana. Specifically, he could see in plain sight two
ounces of marijuana, or double the amount of marijuana
permitted by law. Worley also saw a black safe in the rear right
passenger floorboard directly behind the front passenger seat.
After opening the locked safe, Worley found a loaded semi-
automatic firearm and a small plastic bindle with a white
powdery substance resembling cocaine. During his search of
defendant’s person, Worley found $4,000 in cash.
       At some point during his detention, defendant was placed
in handcuffs and Worley or his partner determined that
defendant had a prior conviction for possession of a firearm.
Defendant was arrested and Worley called for a truck to tow the
Porsche.
       In an information filed in March 2022, defendant was
charged with possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, §
29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1), possession of a controlled substance
while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd.

                                 3
(a); count 2), possession of cannabis for sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11359, subd. (b); count 3), and the sale, offer to sell,
transportation of cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd.
(a)(2); count 4). As to counts 1 and 2, the information alleged
defendant suffered four prior felony convictions.
       In August 2022, defendant filed a motion to suppress
evidence seized from him and the Porsche pursuant to Penal
Code section 1538.5. The People opposed the motion. The
suppression hearing was conducted on September 15, 2022, and
December 9, 2022. Officer Worley was the only witness called to
testify. After finding that Worley was credible, the court denied
the motion.
       On January 26, 2023, defendant accepted the People’s offer
and pled no contest to count 1 in this case, and no contest to two
counts in a different case (case No. TA157000). Pursuant to the
agreed disposition, the court found defendant guilty of those
counts and sentenced him to a total of four years and four months
in state prison. As provided by the parties’ plea agreement, the
court suspended execution of the sentence, placed defendant on
formal probation for two years, and dismissed the remaining
counts.

                         DISCUSSION

      “In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress
evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or
implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]
We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether,
on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment.” (People v. Lenart (2004) 32
Cal.4th 1107, 1119.) “The automobile exception provides ‘police
who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle

                                 4
contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct
a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the
evidence might be found.’ ” (People v. McGee (2020) 53
Cal.App.5th 796, 801.)
       When the voters passed Proposition 64, they legalized most
but not all personal use or possession of marijuana. The voters
enacted Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision
(a)(4) which makes illegal the possession of an open container or
package of marijuana in a vehicle. Additionally, Health and
Safety Code section 11362.1, subdivision (a)(1) permits a person
to possess not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis that is not
concentrated. Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision
(b)(2) makes illegal possessing more than 28.5 grams of
marijuana or more than eight grams of concentrated cannabis by
persons 18 years old or older.
       Here, Officer Worley testified he observed an open
backpack on the back seat of the Porsche containing more than
28.5 grams of marijuana. On these facts, Worley had probable
cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of criminal
activity (illegal possession of marijuana) to support the
warrantless search. (See Collins v. Virginia (2018) ___ U.S. ___
[138 S.Ct. 1663, 1670] [officers may search an automobile without
having obtained a warrant so long as they have probable cause to
do so].)

                               5
                         DISPOSITION

      We have examined the entire record and are satisfied
appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and
no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. The order is
therefore affirmed.

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                          LAVIN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

      EGERTON, J.

      ADAMS, J.

                                6