Court Opinion

ID: 9912211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 20:02:23.836051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:04.907543
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/21/23 P. v. Brink CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

 THE PEOPLE,                                                            B326981

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. BA507005)
           v.

 SEAN BRINK,

           Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:
      Sean Brink appeals an order denying his motion to
suppress evidence following the entry of a plea of no contest to
one count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of
Penal Code1 section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). (§ 1538.5, subd.
(m); California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(A).) We appointed
counsel to represent Brink on appeal. After examination of the

         1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking
this court to independently review the record.
                          BACKGROUND
       On July 7, 2022, Los Angeles Police Officer Daniel
Cardenas and his partner Officer Moran stopped appellant for
riding a motorized scooter on the sidewalk in violation of the
Vehicle Code. Officer Cardenas told appellant why he was being
stopped and asked him to remove the backpack he was wearing.
As appellant complied, the officer saw what he believed to be a
pocketknife in appellant’s back pocket. Officer Cardenas was
acquainted with appellant from prior contacts and knew him to
be an active member of a criminal street gang who had been
armed with pocketknives in the past. For officer safety, Officer
Cardenas removed the pocketknife from appellant’s pocket and
immediately determined it was an illegal switchblade. At that
point, Officer Cardenas intended to arrest appellant.
       While Officer Cardenas was securing the backpack and
switchblade in the police vehicle, his partner patted appellant
down for additional weapons. Officer Moran alerted Officer
Cardenas that he felt something hard in appellant’s right groin
area. Appellant became agitated, and the officers placed him in
handcuffs. As Officer Cardenas continued the pat down, he felt
what he immediately recognized as the barrel of a firearm.
Officer Cardenas then removed a loaded semi-automatic nine-
millimeter handgun from appellant’s pants.
       An information charged appellant with one count of
possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1),
possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count
2), and unlawful possession of a dirk or dagger (§ 21310; count 3).
As to all counts the information further alleged unsatisfactory

                                 2
performance on supervision as an aggravating circumstance.
Appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
      Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence. At the
hearing on the motion, Officer Cardenas testified to the
circumstances of the detention and discovery of the switchblade
and loaded firearm. Defense counsel argued that the officers
lacked a reasonable suspicion that appellant had committed a
Vehicle Code violation by riding a motorized scooter on the
sidewalk because he may have been lawfully entering or exiting a
parking lot. Defense counsel further argued that Officer
Cardenas had no grounds to suspect appellant was armed and
dangerous: the pocketknife was not in plain view, the officer did
not know it was an illegal switchblade until he unlawfully
removed it from appellant’s pocket, and appellant’s mere
possession of a pocketknife did not establish he presented a
present danger to the officers or supply sufficient grounds for a
pat-down search.
      The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Finding no
evidence that appellant was doing anything other than illegally
riding a motorized scooter on the sidewalk, the court rejected the
defense argument that appellant could have been riding on the
sidewalk to lawfully enter or exit an adjacent strip mall, and
determined that the initial detention was valid. The court also
found that Officer Cardenas had a reasonable suspicion that
appellant might be armed and dangerous, based on his prior
contacts with appellant and knowledge that appellant was a gang
member who frequently carried a knife on his person. This
history, together with the fact that Officer Cardenas saw what he
believed to be a pocketknife in appellant’s pocket, justified
confiscation of the knife. Regardless of whether the knife was an

                                3
ordinary pocketknife or an illegal switchblade, the seizure of the
knife supported the officer’s suspicion that appellant possessed
other weapons, which in turn justified the pat-down search.
       On November 29, 2022, appellant pleaded no contest to
count 1 (felon in possession of a firearm, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). In
accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court dismissed the
remaining counts and allegations, suspended imposition of
sentence, and placed appellant on probation for two years. Brink
filed a timely notice of appeal based on the denial of his motion to
suppress evidence.
                           DISCUSSION
       Based on our examination of the entire record we are
satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with his
responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, 441.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The judgment entered following appellant’s entry of a plea
of no contest is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J.        ASHMANN-GERST, J.               CHAVEZ, J.

                                 4