People v. Baldon CA3

Filed 5/1/14 P. v. Baldon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C074389

v. (Super. Ct. No. SF122833A)

LECHARLES EDWARD BALDON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant LeCharles Edward Baldon of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)1 -- count 1) and possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1) -- count 2). In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

sustained allegations of five prior strike convictions (for carjackings and robberies). (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Pursuant to sections 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(C), the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of seven years four months, that is, the upper term of three years, doubled to six years on count 1, and one-third the midterm or eight months, doubled to 16 months, on count 2. Defendant now contends (1) the trial court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain defendant or to conduct a patdown search; and (2) the consecutive sentence on count 2 for possession of ammunition by a felon must be stayed pursuant to section 654. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s suppression motion. However, we agree that the consecutive sentence on count 2 for possession of ammunition by a felon must be stayed pursuant to section 654. We will modify the judgment to stay defendant’s sentence on count 2. BACKGROUND About 12:21 a.m. on October 19, 2012, Stockton Police Officer Jeremy Edens and his partner, Officer Padilla, saw a vehicle parked in a city park past the nighttime park curfew. As Officer Edens drove his patrol car toward the vehicle to contact the vehicle’s occupants, the vehicle “quickly backed out of the parking lot and took off without headlights on.” When the vehicle turned right on a nearby street, Officer Edens could not see if the vehicle headlights had been turned on. He located the vehicle parked in a wide driveway at a house on Lemmore Court. Officer Edens parked the patrol car about a car length behind, leaving sufficient room for the vehicle to back out and leave. Officer Edens approached the front passenger (defendant), whose side window was slightly rolled down, while Officer Padilla contacted the female driver. Officer Edens asked defendant