People v. Bell CA3

Filed 12/9/15 P. v. Bell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C076038

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F05277)

v.

ERIC DEON BELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5),1 defendant pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). A jury found true one prior strike and three prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, doubled, plus three years consecutive for the three prior prison terms, for a total of nine years in prison.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress the evidence found in his car, because the search arose from an unlawfully prolonged detention. Disagreeing, we shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Evidence from the Suppression Hearing At the suppression hearing, Sacramento Police Department Officer Andy Hall testified as the sole witness. On August 16, 2013, around 7:00 p.m., Hall saw a white van make a left turn without signaling. In a marked patrol car, Hall followed defendant as he made two more left turns without signaling and failed to yield at a stop sign.2 Hall turned on his patrol car’s emergency lights to stop the van. Defendant stopped and began to back up toward the patrol car in an apparent attempt to park. When the van came close to Hall’s car, Hall yelled at defendant to stop him from hitting the patrol car. Based on what he had observed of defendant’s driving, Hall believed defendant might be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Hall contacted defendant and asked him for a valid license; defendant gave him an identification card instead. Defendant appeared “extremely nervous during the contact,” and “seemed like he was forcing laughter.” As Hall returned to the patrol car, at “some point between the time [he] got it and the time [he] ran the [records] check,” Hall realized the identification card was not a driver’s license. He then ran a records check, which included checking for warrants and criminal history. Defendant’s criminal history results revealed at least five prior felony convictions in Sacramento County. His most recent conviction was for an assault on a peace officer and felony resisting, for which he had received a prison sentence of over eight years.