People v. Morrison CA3

Filed 12/18/14 P. v. Morrison CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C071790

v. (Super. Ct. No. LF012360A)

TROY LORAY MORRISON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Troy Loray Morrison asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) BACKGROUND On December 19, 2010, California Highway Patrol Officer Michael Walling was patrolling a section of freeway in San Joaquin County when he saw defendant, driving a pick-up truck, weaving from lane to lane and up onto the shoulder. Officer Walling initiated a traffic stop and defendant nearly crashed his vehicle as he was exiting the freeway.

1

Officer Walling approached defendant and asked to see his driver’s license. Defendant told Walling he did not have a driver’s license. Walling noticed defendant’s eyes were red and watery, his speech slurred, and the smell of alcohol was emanating from inside the truck. At Walling’s request, defendant stepped out of the truck; defendant admitted to drinking a bottle of wine. Defendant was arrested and subsequently charged with driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)),1 driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher (§ 23152, subd. (b)), and driving with a license that was currently suspended for driving under the influence (§ 14601.2, subd. (a)). It was further alleged defendant had three prior convictions for driving under the influence. (§ 23550.) Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained at the December 19, 2010, traffic stop. The trial court denied his motion. Defendant also filed a pretrial discovery request pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. The trial court granted the request in part. Defendant then moved to strike the allegation that in September 2001 in Santa Clara County case No. C108803, he was convicted of driving with a blood-alcohol content at or exceeding 0.08 percent. (§ 23152, subd. (b).) He argued his September 2001 conviction was constitutionally invalid because he had not been advised of all his constitutional rights before entering into the plea that led to his conviction. Specifically, defendant argued he was never advised he could challenge his 1996 conviction for driving under the influence, which was alleged in the Santa Clara County case as a sentencing enhancement. At the initial hearing on defendant’s motion to strike, the People presented a certified copy of the misdemeanor complaint in Santa Clara County case No. 0108803, along with a rights waiver and plea form. The trial court admitted those documents into