People v. Mulhall CA3

Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Mulhall CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Lassen) ----

THE PEOPLE, C077434

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR030809)

v.

JOHN JOSEPH MULHALL IV,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Joseph Mulhall IV pled guilty to unlawful transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)),1 and admitted one prior conviction (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate five years in prison. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Disagreeing, we shall affirm the judgment.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Evidence from the Suppression Hearing At the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence, Lassen County Sheriff’s Deputy Rajheim Hunt testified that he was on duty, in a marked patrol car, on June 13, 2013 at approximately 8:34 p.m. He was parked on the side of the road when he noticed a silver Jeep travelling southbound with a malfunctioning driver’s side taillight. Hunt stopped the Jeep for a traffic violation.2 When Hunt approached the Jeep, he observed that the driver’s side taillight was functioning; however, red tape was covering the taillight and making it difficult to see. Hunt asked defendant for his driver’s license after advising him of the grounds for the stop. With the driver’s license in hand, Hunt walked back to his car and ran a records and warrant check, taking approximately five minutes. Dispatch notified Hunt that defendant had a non-extraditable warrant out of Washington for a parole violation.3 Hunt walked back to defendant with the intent to ask defendant to “step out from the vehicle to discuss the warrant.” Defendant then told Hunt “he knew he had [the warrant], he was working at Little Debbie on Johnstonville Road to pay off some fines.” This comment by defendant “kind of threw up a flag” for Hunt, as Hunt knew there was not a Little Debbie located on Johnstonville Road. Hunt also observed that defendant was nervous during that brief conversation. Hunt then asked defendant if he had anything illegal in the car and if he could search the car. Defendant responded, “ ‘yeah, but I don’t see why.’ ”