People v. Valdez CA4/1

Filed 6/26/25 P. v. Valdez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083790

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS328446)

MIGUEL ENRIQUE VALDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Enrique Camarena, Alejandro Morales and Michael J. Popkins, Judges. Affirmed.

Garrick Byers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Miguel Enrique Valdez pleaded guilty to transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 2); and possession of a controlled substance for sale (Id., § 11351; count 3). The court dismissed a charge of selling a controlled substance. (Id., § 11352, subd. (a); count 1.) It sentenced Valdez to four years on count 2 and a concurrent term of 3 years on count 3, but suspended execution of the sentence pending his completion of probation and drug court. Valdez contends the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At the preliminary hearing, a Chula Vista Police Department Officer testified he had been a law enforcement officer since 2016, and was trained and experienced in narcotics investigations. On October 21, 2023, he was patrolling in a marked car at a trolley station known for its high number of drug arrests. He noticed Valdez sitting in his vehicle, which was at the end of the parking lot with its door open, talking to a male bicyclist. Valdez and the bicyclist touched hands, and the officer believed Valdez gave something to the bicyclist. The bicyclist “looked around cautiously” to his left, right, and behind him, and left the area immediately. Valdez instantly closed his car door and drove away. The officer believed he had observed a hand-to-hand narcotics sale, and therefore followed Valdez, who drove to a grocery store, picked up a passenger and left the shopping center. The officer saw through Valdez’s rear window that a “significant” crack extended from the far left to the middle of Valdez’s front windshield. The officer was concerned about Valdez’s ability to see safely out of the front windshield; therefore, he stopped Valdez’s