People v. Marquez CA3

Filed 3/10/14 P. v. Marquez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C073544

v. (Super. Ct. No. 62115452)

JESUS JOE MARQUEZ, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the magistrate denied his suppression motion at the preliminary hearing, defendant Jesus Joe Marquez pleaded no contest to transportation of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of three years in county jail. Defendant now contends the magistrate erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He admits that because his trial counsel did not renew the suppression motion after the complaint was deemed an information, he has not preserved the issue for review on appeal. Nonetheless, he argues we must review the merits of his contention because

1

his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to renew the suppression motion after the complaint was deemed an information. We agree with defendant that because his trial counsel did not renew the suppression motion after the complaint was deemed an information, he has not preserved the issue for review on appeal. As for his claim of ineffective assistance, defendant fails to show that counsel had no satisfactory rationale for failing to reassert the suppression motion in the superior court. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Placer County Sheriff’s Deputy Scott Dow was on patrol at around 8:15 p.m. on April 23, 2012, when he saw a Ford Focus driven by defendant following a car too closely. When defendant turned the car erratically to the left, Deputy Dow initiated a traffic stop. Defendant pulled his car over at a convenience store on Dry Creek Road and Highway 49 in Auburn. There was less than full daylight, but Deputy Dow could not recall whether the sun had set. Deputy Dow parked and called for assistance from another deputy. He then contacted defendant, the sole occupant of the car. Defendant gave his name and address when asked. He told the deputy he did not have a driver’s license; a records check with dispatch confirmed defendant’s driver’s license had been suspended. Deputy Dow cited defendant and had him exit the car to sign the citation. Deputy Dow asked defendant where he was coming from; defendant responded that he was coming from a trailer park near the Taco Bell restaurant by Highway 49. Deputy Dow was familiar with the trailer park, which had a reputation for a higher crime rate than other areas of Auburn. He asked defendant for permission to search the car, which was granted. Asked at the preliminary hearing if he had any concerns for his safety on the night of the search, Deputy Dow replied: “There is always concern with people walking