People v. Tiffith CA2/6

Filed 11/21/24 P. v. Tiffith CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B329785 (Super. Ct. Nos. TA151960 Plaintiff and Respondent, & TA154042) (Los Angeles County) v.

ANTHONY TIFFITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony Tiffith appeals an order revoking probation following a contested hearing. (Pen. Code1 § 1203, subd. (a).) He contends the record contains insufficient evidence he either (1) drove while under the influence of a drug or (2) possessed a controlled substance for sale. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In separate cases, appellant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (§ 211) and possession of a firearm by a felon

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). On the section 211 conviction, the court suspended execution of a five-year prison sentence and placed appellant on five years formal probation. On the section 29800, subdivision (a) conviction, the court ordered two years formal probation to run concurrently. Appellant was to obey all laws as a condition of probation. Several months after sentencing, the court held a contested probation revocation hearing. Officer Richard Phillips testified that while he was responding to a radio call at around 11:55 p.m., he saw a car approaching him. Officer Phillips tried to get the attention of the driver, later identified as appellant. However, the car collided with the driver’s side door of the police vehicle where Officer Phillips had been standing. Officer Phillips had to jump back into the police vehicle to avoid the car. Officer Phillips indicated the car appellant drove was moving at a “slow rate of speed.” When appellant got out of the car, he had an unsteady gait and was struggling to keep his eyes open. Officer Phillips’s search of the car uncovered multiple containers with a “green leafy substance resembling marijuana,” as well as individual clear plastic baggies and scales. Officer Phillips believed the items he found were in a backpack in the passenger seat or front area somewhere, but he was uncertain. He testified the backpack was in the car. “[M]ultiple denominations of U.S. currency” were also recovered, but Officer Phillips was unsure of their location. Officer Phillips formed an opinion that appellant possessed cannabis for sale. Other officers conducted field sobriety tests and formed the opinion that appellant had been driving under the influence of an unknown substance.