People v. Pour CA3
Filed 8/20/15 P. v. Pour CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----
THE PEOPLE, C076213
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F02091)
v.
BRYAN JOSEPH POUR,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Bryan Joseph Pour guilty of possession of methamphetamine. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years’ Proposition 36 probation. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion and the case should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47. We affirm.
1
BACKGROUND On March 31, 2013, about 8:07 p.m., Sacramento Police Officer Sean Cunningham and his partner Gregory Galliano responded to a suspicious vehicle call regarding two men outside of a vehicle parked in front of a location in a residential area. The officers spotted a parked vehicle in the area, a green Toyota 4Runner. The Toyota had two male passengers and a dog. The officers parked their patrol car behind the Toyota close enough for a “typical traffic stop” without blocking it. The officers did not activate the siren or use the PA system; they used the patrol car’s spotlight because it was dark outside. The officers approached the 4Runner, with Officer Cunningham contacting the driver, defendant. The other passenger, Morgan Davis, sat behind defendant but within reach of the center console. Defendant provided identification; a records check indicated that Davis gave the officers a false name. Officer Galliano asked Davis to step out of the vehicle, and Officer Cunningham asked Davis for his real name, which he gave. Officer Galliano told Officer Cunningham that Davis was on searchable probation. After Davis was handcuffed and put in the patrol car, Officer Cunningham decided to conduct a probation search of the 4Runner. Officer Cunningham informed defendant of the impending search and asked if he had anything illegal in the vehicle. Defendant produced a jar containing marijuana and a knife. He said that he did not have a medical marijuana card. Officer Cunningham asked defendant to exit the 4Runner. He conducted a brief patdown of defendant and asked him to sit at the front bumper of the patrol car. Defendant complied and Officer Cunningham started the search. He first searched the driver’s side and then went to the center console, where he found a film canister that appeared to contain methamphetamine. Officer Cunningham then did a quick search of the vehicle, handcuffed defendant, told him he had found methamphetamine in the center
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)