People v. Miranda CA2/1

Filed 3/23/26 P. v. Miranda CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B342326 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 24CJCF03185) v.

MICHAEL MIRANDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shelly Torrealba, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Christina Vanarelli, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Defendant and appellant Michael Miranda challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion under Penal Code section 1538.51 to suppress evidence recovered when police officers detained him and found drugs and an unregistered handgun in his car. After the court denied his suppression motion, Miranda pleaded no contest to one count of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)), and the court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months (§ 1170, subd. (h)(1)) in jail. Miranda contends the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him and asks that we reverse the denial of his suppression motion. We disagree. The officers detained Miranda after they observed him in the driver’s seat of his parked car, along with one other person sitting in the back rear seat. One of the officers testified that in his experience, when (1) this configuration of driver and passenger occurs (2) at night in an area known for drug transactions (3) with a driver who is not engaged in ride-sharing, all of which facts were present, it is indicative of an illegal drug sale. The officer’s testimony showed he acted on “an objective circumstance justifying the detention,” (People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1046 (Flores)), not merely a hunch. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction, but with a modification to correct an error in the court’s statement about the minimum amount it could impose as a restitution fine.