In re Andrew B. CA5

Filed 9/25/14 In re Andrew B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re ANDREW B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067627

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW130178)

v. OPINION ANDREW B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Judge. Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo- Andrew B. appeals from a judgment entered, after the denial of his motion to suppress and a contested jurisdictional hearing. The juvenile court found true the

allegations that he transported marijuana (Health & Saf. Code,1§ 11360, subd. (a)), and drove with a suspended license (Veh. Code, §14601.1, subd. (a)), but it found not true the allegation he possessed marijuana for purpose of sales (§ 11359). Andrew was adjudged a ward of the court and committed to juvenile hall for 120 days, with credit for 107 days already spent in confinement. On appeal, Andrew contends the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress, which was based on the lack of Miranda2 warnings given before he was asked whether he had drugs in his car. He further contends we must reverse the court’s finding he transported marijuana in violation of section 11360, because the court found insufficient evidence he possessed the marijuana for purpose of sales. His contention is based on the recent amendment to section 11379, which defines transportation to add an intent-to-sell element. Although section 11360 was not similarly amended, Andrew argues equal protection principles entitle him to the benefit of the new definition of transportation in section 11379. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment. FACTS3 Around 8:05 p.m., on January 19, 2013, California Highway Patrol Officer Jeffrey Adels stopped Andrew for exceeding the speed limit. Andrew was driving a rental car, and there were two other passengers inside the car with him. When Officer Adels made contact with Andrew, the officer noticed “[t]he odor of marijuana emitting from the vehicle.” Officer Adels testified, “I let him know that I observed the odor, and I asked him for his driver’s license, registration and insurance.” After Andrew replied that he was not sure if he had a driver’s license, Officer Adels asked him to step out of the car.                                                                   1 Further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified. 2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). 3 Our factual summary focuses on facts pertinent to Andrew’s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress, which was heard at the time of the jurisdictional hearing on May 20, 2013. A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary to resolve his equal protection claim. 2