People v. Melgoza CA6

Filed 10/27/25 P. v. Melgoza CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H052985 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR01643)

v.

MARIO MELGOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a motion to suppress was denied, Mario Melgoza pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm and was sentenced to three years in prison. Melgoza appealed, and counsel was appointed to represent him. Counsel filed an opening briefing describing the underlying facts and the case, but raised no issues. We notified Melgoza of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but received no response. We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).) We conclude that there is no arguable issue for appeal and therefore affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND According to testimony from the preliminary hearing in this case, on the night of April 2, 2023, a Watsonville police officer observed a gold Suzuki midsize SUV pull in

front of him, its tires screeching, engine revving, and plume of smoke coming from its rear wheels. The SUV came to an abrupt stop, spun out its rear wheels again, and proceeded onwards, leaving tire marks on the pavement. Believing that the driver was exhibiting speed in violation of Vehicle Code section 23109, subdivision (c), the officer pulled over the SUV. When the officer approached, the driver, who was identified as Melgoza, was yelling profanities and acting very aggressively, though Melgoza asserted that he was angry at a woman on the sidewalk. While the officer asked for identifying documents, he observed that Melgoza was acting very nervous and jittery, far more than usual for a law enforcement contact. Based on this behavior, the officer suspected that Melgoza was under the influence of a controlled substance. As an initial test, the officer asked Melgoza to look at him and close his eyes. When Melgoza did so, the officer noticed eyelid flutter or tremors, which in the officer’s experience is consistent with the influence of a controlled substance. Based on subsequent field sobriety tests, Melgoza was arrested for driving under the influence of a stimulant. After investigating whether Melgoza was driving under the influence, the police searched Melgoza and his car. In Melgoza’s jacket, the police found a glass pipe with burn marks consistent with methamphetamine use as well as a 3.8-gram crystallized substance that was later determined to be methamphetamine. In the car, the police found a loaded pistol and 177 grams of a black tar-like substance that was later determined to be heroin. The police also found a notebook with names and dollar amounts that appeared to be a “pay/owe” sheet, a scale, and large amount of cash. About two weeks after Melgoza’s arrest, a criminal complaint was filed against him. The complaint charged Melgoza with seven counts: (1) possession of a controlled substance with a firearm in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subdivision (a); (2) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1); (3) possession of a controlled substance (heroin) 2