People v. Trejo CA2/2

Filed 12/22/14 P. v. Trejo CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B256917

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA062501) v.

JOSE TREJO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles A. Chung, Judge. Affirmed.

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

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, David C. Cook and Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Jose Trejo (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered upon a plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He contends that the patdown search leading to the discovery of the evidence was unlawful because the facts known to the arresting officer did not reasonably support a suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. Finding no merit to defendant’s contentions, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Procedural history Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). The information alleged that defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 1170.12, subdivision (b), and 667, subdivisions (b)-(j) (the “Three Strikes” law),1 and that he served three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). After his arraignment defendant sought to suppress the evidence against him. On June 12, 2014, after the trial court denied the motion pursuant to section 1538.5, defendant entered into a plea agreement in which he pled no contest to the charged offense and admitted the prior strike conviction in exchange for a six-year prison term. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging only the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Prosecution evidence Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputy Donald Chavez testified that on March 23, 2014, at approximately 4:00 a.m., he and his partner, Deputy Roberts conducted a protective sweep of a residence as part of their assistance to the Department of Children and Family Services in removing a four-month-old child from parental custody. Prior to arriving at the child’s location, Deputy Chavez determined that there were eight outstanding arrest warrants for several Hispanic males at that address, including the juvenile with custody of the child, Alexander Bravo (Bravo). The deputies knocked on the front door of the