People v. Duncan CA3

Filed 11/15/24 P. v. Duncan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100475

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CF02158)

v.

WILLIAM EARL DUNCAN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant William Earl Duncan, Jr., asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief, and defendant filed a supplemental brief challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

1

Having reviewed the supplemental brief and the record, we conclude defendant’s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress lacks merit and there is no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. I On May 25, 2023, a police officer conducted a traffic stop of defendant’s car. After the officer shined his flashlight in the passenger window, defendant drove off and the officer followed him. Defendant crashed his car into a tree and ran from the car. He was found nearby and arrested. Officers searched defendant’s car and found over five pounds of methamphetamine, a handgun, an assault rifle, and ammunition. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant moved to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop, arguing the stop was unreasonable. The trial court held a combined preliminary hearing and hearing on the motion to suppress. Officer Charles Stelzner testified that as he drove past a man while on patrol, the man immediately turned around, walked to a car at a gas station, and began digging through the passenger compartment. Officer Stelzner ran the license plate of the car, learning that it had been registered to defendant but that the registration had expired. When the officer circled around, the car began driving away. Officer Stelzner received information that defendant had an outstanding warrant, and Officer Stelzner followed the car, noting that the rear license plate light was out, making it impossible for him to read the plate without his headlights. Officer Stelzner made the enforcement stop. On cross-examination, Officer Stelzner admitted that five or six minutes after the initial stop, he learned that defendant did not have an outstanding warrant. He also admitted that if he had read more of the available DMV information, he would have seen that someone had paid the registration on the car a few days before the stop. Officer Stelzner testified, however, that at the time of the initial stop, he thought the registration was not paid and that defendant had an outstanding warrant. He added that while