People v. Adams CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD244072
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court denied Adams's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a vehicle stop and search, leading to a guilty plea for possessing a forged item. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende/Anders review found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5)“Following a contested hearing the court denied the motion.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the suppression ruling because the Wende/Anders brief identified the issues as 'possible, but not arguable' and the court found no reasonably arguable issues in the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying possible but not arguable issues and request court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to a guilty plea appeal where counsel identified no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no error, which satisfies the mandate for independent review in such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Jeffery Adams's Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence (checks and a check-washing kit found after officers approached an illegally parked car in which he was a passenger), after which he pleaded guilty to possessing a forged item and was granted probation with 421 days of custody credit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying possible detention and seizure issues, Adams filed nothing on his own behalf, 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 motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 (challenging the detention of the car's occupants, the order to exit the car, and the seizure of the check from Adams)“Following a contested hearing the court denied the motion.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard of review or analyze the Fourth Amendment issues; it simply reports the facts from the suppression hearing and concludes, after Wende review, that no arguable issue exists. The facts recited nonetheless support the ruling: the car was illegally parked (a lawful basis to approach and contact the occupants), the officer saw the driver reach into a bag and Adams reaching around the back seat (furtive movements supporting a safety-based display of a weapon and a brief detention), a stack of checks and a check in Adams's hand were observed in plain view, and one occupant was a parolee at large with a Fourth waiver, which independently authorized the vehicle search. On these facts the detention and seizure appear reasonable, so the conclusion that no arguable issue exists is defensible, though the opinion's lack of analysis limits certainty. |
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 for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record itself.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it summarizes the suppression-hearing facts, lists the possible issues counsel identified, notes Adams declined to file a supplemental brief, and states it reviewed the entire record. It contains no substantive Fourth Amendment analysis of the three identified issues, so a reader cannot verify the court's reasoning beyond the recited facts, which do appear to support the ruling.
Opinion
Filed 1/22/14 P. v. Adams 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, D063950
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244072)
JEFFERY ADAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Sarita Ordóñez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
Jeffery Adams entered a guilty plea to one count of possessing a forged item (Pen.
Code,1 § 475, subd. (a)). Prior to the entry of his guilty plea, Adams filed a motion to 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. suppress evidence under section 1538.5. Following a contested hearing the court denied the motion. Adams was granted probation subject to 421 days custody, with credit for 421 days served.
Adams filed a timely notice of appeal.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Adams the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since this appeal arises from a guilty plea and the brief filed discusses only possible issues regarding the suppression motion, we will only summarize the facts raised at that motion.
On October 24, 2012, San Diego Police officers were patrolling in a high crime area at about 10:00 a.m. The officers observed a suspicious person climbing the stairs of a closed bar. Police stopped to investigate. They lost sight of the person who had attracted their attention.
On his way to the bar, one of the officers cut across a liquor store parking lot. In the process the officer observed an illegally parked car on University Avenue near the store. As the officer approached the car from the rear of the passenger side of the car, he observed the driver reach into a purple Crown Royal bag. The officer, fearing for his safety, took out his firearm and held it down by his right leg. There were three males in 2 the car. Adams was seated in the back seat. The officer also saw Adams reaching around the back seat area.
As the officers made verbal contact with the men in the car, police told them to quit reaching into the bag. The driver responded: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. It's just paper."
As officers approached the car they observed a stack of checks on the center console of the car, and a similar check in Adams's hand.
Police ordered the men out of the car and obtained one of the checks from Adams.
A further pat down of one of the passengers and a search of the car produced a number of checks, syringes and a "check washing kit." Prior to the search, police confirmed that one of the men was a parolee at large, for whom a warrant had been issued and that he had a "Fourth Waiver."
Police were not able to locate the suspicious person who had originally attracted their attention.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating she is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.
738, the brief identifies the possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the fact the officer approached the car with an unholstered gun constituted a detention of the men in the car?
2. Whether Adams was lawfully detained when he was ordered out of the car?
3. Was the check lawfully seized from Adams?
3 We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Adams on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12