People v. Alves CA4/2 ( 2014 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E060805
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA1302052)
BRENT D'VAUGHN ALVES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Colin J. Bilash,
Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas K. Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Brent
D’Vaughn Alves, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Defendant and Appellant Brent 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.
1
(§ 11359). Defendant additionally admitted having suffered two prior narcotics
convictions (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)) and four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd.
(b)). Pursuant to his agreement with the court, and over the People’s objection, the court
imposed an aggregate sentence of six years’ incarceration, suspended, and granted
defendant felony probation for three years.
After counsel filed the notice of appeal, this 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 facts, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the
entire record. Defendant was offered the opportunity to file a personal supplemental
brief, which he has done. In his brief, defendant 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 PROCEDURAL 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 container in public. The officer walked up to
defendant and asked him for identification. Defendant gave the officer identification.
The officer asked defendant what he was doing. Defendant responded he was having a
beer. Defendant had a white plastic grocery bag directly at his side which he said
belonged to him.
2
The officer ran defendant’s name through dispatch and confirmed defendant had
three valid misdemeanor warrants for his arrest. 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 could 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 player and CDs were inside the bag.
The officer searched the bag prior to agreeing to surrender it to defendant’s sister
in order to ensure nothing illegal or potentially dangerous was inside. The officer also
wanted to inventory the contents to ensure all 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 officer suspected was marijuana. In addition, the
other found a bag containing 14 smaller baggies of what the officers suspected was
methamphetamine. The suspected methamphetamine field tested positive for
methamphetamine. The officer also found a marijuana cigar or blunt.
The court granted defendant’s motion to represent himself prior to the preliminary
hearing. Defendant filed a number of motions, 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 and 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, the court continued the
3
hearing at which defendant and his sister testified. Defendant testified he was sitting on
the steps of his apartment adjacent to a private alleyway when the officer contacted him.
He was not drinking a beer. The court denied 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-year 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 record 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.
4