People v. Dillon CA6

Filed 2/20/14 P. v. Dillon CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040020 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1228637)

v.

KATHERINE ELAINE DILLON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Katherine Elaine Dillon appeals from a final judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende was being requested. We notified defendant of her right to submit a written argument on her own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed, and we have not received a written response from defendant. Pursuant to Wende, we reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues. We will therefore provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110 (Kelly).) We will further include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Id. at p. 112.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Our summary of the facts are taken from the evidence and testimony presented at the jury trial. Prosecution Evidence On November 6, 2011, Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Deputy Kelvin Mah was patrolling an area in the City of Saratoga. Mah testified at trial that at approximately 9:50 p.m. he noticed that a car in front of him had a broken taillight. He initiated a traffic stop and positioned his spotlight on the car. As Mah approached the car from the driver’s side, defendant, who was alone in the car, rolled down the window and Mah noticed an odor of marijuana. Mah asked defendant for her driver’s license and registration. He also asked defendant if there was anything illegal in the car. Defendant gave Mah a medical marijuana card and indicated that she had some cannabis. Mah testified that he asked defendant for her consent to search the car. After she consented, Mah asked her to step outside the car. As defendant came out of the car, a glass pipe fell from her lap and shattered on the road. Mah testified at trial that the pipe appeared to be the kind commonly used to smoke methamphetamine and that the pipe had dark marks which indicated it had been used. Mah walked defendant to his patrol car and searched the car. He found a woman’s handbag on the front passenger seat that had a plastic bag containing a white crystal substance that Mah recognized to be methamphetamine. Mah testified that the substance tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine using a narcotics identifier kit (NIK) in his patrol car. Mah placed defendant in handcuffs and continued searching the rest of defendant’s car. He eventually located another handbag in the backseat of the car that had plastic bags containing marijuana. Mah returned to his patrol car and read defendant her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Mah then asked defendant if the purse found in the car’s front seat was hers. Defendant answered that the