People v. Ramirez CA2/8

Filed 10/9/14 P. v. Ramirez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B253587

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA089929) v.

GILBERT RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Suzette Clover, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant Gilbert Ramirez appeals from his conviction, following a no contest plea, on one count of felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). We affirm. On July 12, 2013, defendant was charged by information with three counts: possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 1), felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 3). It was also specially alleged, as to all counts, defendant had suffered five prior qualifying strikes within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law and had served five prior prison terms. The information was subsequently amended by interlineation to add one count (count 4) for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). Defendant moved to suppress evidence recovered at the time of his arrest. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs Jonathan Elizarraraz and Scott Chapman, the arresting deputies, testified at the evidentiary hearing to the following facts. Shortly after 1:00 in the morning on May 31, 2013, the deputies were on patrol in a marked vehicle. They were making a routine check at the Palms Motel in the City of Rosemead because it is known for a high level of narcotics activity. Defendant was standing with a female at the motel’s check-in window. Deputy Chapman believed defendant matched the general description of a suspect wanted for making criminal threats from a week or so before in the same general area. Defendant was about 30 feet from the patrol car and Deputy Chapman, while still seated in the driver seat, asked defendant his name and if he had any identification. Defendant said something inaudible but then denied having any identification. Deputy Chapman asked defendant if they could speak with him and he walked over to their patrol car. Deputy Elizarraraz got out of the car and went up to defendant and asked defendant if he could search him. Defendant said “Go ahead. I don’t have anything.”