People v. Smith CA3

Filed 6/7/16 P. v. Smith CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076766

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF 13-1161, CRF 13-2636, v. CRF 14-0020)

ANTHONY MICHAEL SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a global settlement of three cases, defendant Anthony Michael Smith pleaded guilty and no contest to multiple counts, including receipt of a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).) On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence regarding the stolen vehicle. We affirm. BACKGROUND We discuss only the facts pertinent to defendant’s appeal. Two patrol officers visited a house after receiving an anonymous tip: defendant had stolen a pickup truck and was storing it there. At the house, the officers spoke with a

1

tenant, who was renting a room. She told the officers defendant (also a tenant) and the homeowner lived there but were out. The officers said they were investigating a tip of a stolen truck in the backyard. The officers asked the tenant if there was a pickup truck in the backyard. She said there was a truck in the backyard, but she did not know who it belonged to. She stated that defendant had been working on the truck. After confirming the tenant had access to the backyard, the officers asked permission to “go in the backyard to look at the truck.” The tenant agreed. In the backyard, the officers saw a red, four-door Chevrolet pickup truck. Many parts had been stripped: it was missing license plates, bumpers, the hood, the front fenders, and the dash. Part of the engine was also stripped out. One of the back doors was open, letting the officers see that an inside door panel was also missing. The top of the truck was covered with a blanket obscuring the front windshield and front door windows. The officers lifted the blanket off the front windshield to read the vehicle identification number (VIN). With the VIN, the officers confirmed the truck was stolen. While the officers were in the backyard, the tenant stood near the back sliding glass door. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized. At the hearing, one of the officers was cross-examined regarding getting permission for the search: “Q. So after you—after [the tenant] told you she lived there what did you ask her about searching? “A. I didn’t ask her about searching. I asked her if I could access the backyard to look at the pickup truck.” The trial court denied the motion to suppress finding the officers had consent to be in the backyard; defendant had no reasonable expectation that someone would not flip up the blanket to check the VIN; and defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the stolen vehicle’s VIN.