People v. Hamilton CA5

Filed 10/28/14 P. v. Hamilton CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F067582 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MF010366A) v.

ROBERT RICHARD HAMILTON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge.

Barbara A. Smith, 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-

*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Robert Richard Hamilton pled no contest to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). He also admitted a strike prior and a prison prior. On appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the initial detention was not a valid traffic stop. We find no error and will affirm. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND On January 5, 2013, about 11:30 p.m., Kern County Sheriff’s Deputy Sean Mountjoy noticed a truck whose rear license plate was not fully legible because it was missing its reflective coating. Additionally, the plate was obscured by a trailer hitch ball. As the deputy followed the vehicle, he also noticed an inoperable rear light. After stopping defendant for these Vehicle Code violations, controlled substances were subsequently found as the result of a consensual search.2 DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 because the initial stop was invalid. More particularly, he complains the deputy’s concerns about the license plate were questionable because the deputy could read the plate when he approached defendant’s vehicle at the time of the stop. Further, he asserts the brake light was not tested, and in combination with the aforementioned, the fact no citations were issued equates to a lack of reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop.