People v. Brown CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD241439
- Trial judges
- Eugenia A. Eyherabide; Jay M. Bloom
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Gilbert Nares, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court denied Brown's motion to suppress evidence, finding the police stop reasonable and the officer's testimony credible, after which Brown pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal following a Wende/Anders review.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence“The trial court found Hoskins's testimony more credible than that of Rios and Brown, found the officers' conduct was reasonable and consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and denied the defense motion to suppress evidence.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review applied to the suppression ruling. It notes that counsel identified the issue as 'possible, but not arguable' and that the court's independent review disclosed 'no reasonably arguable appellate issues.' |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a Wende brief identifying no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel who finds no arguable issues. It accurately reflects that the court conducted an independent review and found no error, which is the required outcome in such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Brown's Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress methamphetamine found in a pouch he discarded while fleeing officers who had seen him riding a bicycle on the sidewalk against traffic, after which Brown pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and received three years of formal probation. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying possible but not arguable issues, Brown filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence, including the trial court's finding that Officer Hoskins was more credible than the defense witnesses and that the officers' conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment“The trial court found Hoskins's testimony more credible than that of Rios and Brown, found the officers' conduct was reasonable and consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and denied the defense motion to suppress evidence.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard of review; it conducts an independent Wende/Anders record review and concludes no arguable issue exists. On the facts as credited by the trial court, the officers observed a municipal code violation (riding on the sidewalk against traffic), which supplied an objective basis for a detention; Brown fled when questioned and discarded the pouch before he submitted to authority, so the pouch was likely abandoned before any seizure, and the subsequent search followed a lawful detention and admissions about weapons. Credibility findings are for the trial court and are not reweighed on appeal. The result appears correct, though the opinion offers no substantive analysis, so the conclusion rests on the sparse recited facts. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then independently examine the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, recited the facts and procedural history, listed the possible issues counsel identified, noted Brown declined to file a supplemental brief, and independently reviewed the record before affirming. The opinion is procedurally proper and the result is defensible on the recited facts, but it contains no substantive Fourth Amendment analysis, so its soundness can be assessed only as to compliance with Wende rather than on the merits.
Opinion
Filed 12/20/13 P. v. Brown CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063111
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD241439)
JASON JEREMY BROWN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jay M.
Bloom and Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judges. Affirmed.
Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jason Jeremy Brown appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Before trial, Brown filed a Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence. At the evidentiary hearing on that motion, San Diego Police Officer Terry Hoskins testified regarding the events leading to Brown's arrest and discovery of the methamphetamine. At about 4:40 a.m. on June 14, 2012, Hoskins and his partner, Officer John Gillard, saw Brown riding his bicycle on the sidewalk along University Avenue near its intersection with Ohio Street against the flow of traffic in violation of the San Diego Municipal Code. Based on those violations, Gillard parked their patrol car in the middle lane of University Avenue and asked Brown: "[W]hat are you doing riding a bicycle on the sidewalk in a business district?" Brown stopped and looked at the officers, but did not reply. Instead, he turned his bicycle around and began quickly pedaling northbound on the sidewalk along Ohio Street. The officers turned on the car's lights and siren and pursued Brown. Hoskins saw Brown's right hand extend and then return to the handlebars. Brown rode about 30 feet and then stopped.
When Gillard ordered Brown to get on the ground, he dropped his bicycle and lay on top of it. The officers handcuffed him. Gillard asked him whether he had anything illegal on him. Brown replied he had a can of mace and a pocketknife. He admitted he had previously been convicted of a felony. A search of Brown found the two items. At about the place where Hoskins saw Brown extend his right hand, he found a small black felt pouch on the sidewalk. It had a glass pipe known to be used to smoke controlled substances and a brown piece of tissue paper containing a white crystalline substance that appeared to be methamphetamine.
2 Brown testified at the hearing on his motion to suppress evidence. He admitted riding his bicycle on the sidewalk, but asserted that when the patrol car pulled up next to him, the officers did not say anything to him. As he began to ride away, he heard the siren and stopped riding his bicycle. The officers "pummeled" him on top of his bicycle and handcuffed him. Brown denied owning or throwing the black pouch.
Antonio Rios, a resident in the area, testified he was walking his dog when he saw Brown riding his bicycle on the sidewalk along Ohio Street. Rios saw the patrol car drive up to Brown and the officers "pretty much tackle[]" him.
The trial court found Hoskins's testimony more credible than that of Rios and Brown, found the officers' conduct was reasonable and consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and denied the defense motion to suppress evidence. Thereafter, pursuant to a plea bargain, Brown pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court granted Brown three years of formal probation. Brown timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Brown's appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the judgment, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies the following possible, but not arguable, issues for our review: (1) was Brown "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the officers contacted him and asked him why he was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk in a business district; (2) if he was so seized, did the officers have 3 reasonable suspicion to seize or contact him; and (3) did the trial court err by finding Officer Hoskins credible and the defense witnesses less credible?
We granted Brown permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Brown has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12