People v. Martin CA2/2

Filed 6/27/16 P. v. Martin CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B267865

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA080450) v.

ARMANDO MARTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Cynthia Ulfig, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded.

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

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

Defendant Armando Martin appeals from a judgment after he pleaded no contest to charges in an information of sale, offer to sell or transportation of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a) (count 1) and possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of Penal Code1 section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (count 3). Defendant also admitted that he had a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (j), and 1170.12. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years as to the base term in count 1, which was doubled to eight years for the strike, plus a concurrent term of two years for count 3, which was doubled due to the strike. The court awarded defendant 624 days of presentence credits. Prior to his plea, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for the disclosure of personnel records of two police officers, which were requested pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). The trial court subsequently denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5. In this appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his Pitchess motion. We conditionally reverse the judgment with directions for further proceedings. Prosecution Evidence The following facts are taken from defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. On April 9, 2014, at around 9:00 p.m., Los Angeles Police Department Officers Naul Lopez and Robert Sewell were driving in a marked patrol car. They observed defendant driving a Mercedes with a middle brake light that did not work. The officers ran the license plate and learned that the vehicle’s registration had expired in October 2013. The officers then made a traffic stop of the Mercedes. Officer Lopez went to the driver’s side of the vehicle, while Officer Sewell went to the passenger side. Defendant was on the driver’s side and Javier Serna was on the passenger side. Officer Lopez informed defendant of the traffic violations and asked for