P. v. Manuel CA1/1

Filed 3/26/13 P. v. Manuel CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136321 v. TITO LAMAR MANUEL, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR160460) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant and defendant Tito Manuel appeals following the judgment entered following his no contest plea to unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851, subd. (a)) and admission of two prison priors (Pen. Code § 667.5, subd. (b)). His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2012, Highway Patrol Officer Jack Kemper was riding with Officers Insley and Burns, in a patrol car traveling northbound on Highway 29. The officers noticed a 2008 Honda Accord traveling in the number two lane because the driver was continually tapping the brakes. The officers followed the Honda as it exited

1

the highway in Yountville. The Honda came to a stop at the intersection of California Drive, but four feet beyond the limit line. The combination of the brake tapping and failure to stop at the limit line were “an attention getter” because brake tapping is a possible sign of impairment and the failure to stop at the limit line was a violation of Vehicle Code section 22450. As the Honda made a right turn onto California, Officer Insley, who was driving, activated the overhead lights. After proceeding through one more intersection, the Honda pulled over and came to a stop. Officer Kemper exited the patrol car and made contact with defendant. Kemper immediately observed smoke in the car, and a cigar-type residue and a small amount of a leafy green substance in a plastic bag on defendant’s lap, which Kemper suspected was marijuana. Upon running the license plate number of the Honda, Officer Kemper was advised the car was reported stolen by the Vallejo Police Department. At this point, Officer Kemper arrested defendant and searched him. He found a California identification card bearing defendant’s name and three debit cards bearing the names of other individuals. Officer Kemper also ran the VIN, and was again advised the car had been reported stolen. He was also advised the license plate did not match the VIN and the plate should have read 6EVH428. A search of the car then turned up a laptop computer. In addition, a white powdery substance was found in the center console which the officer believed was cocaine. Officer Kemper then advised defendant of his Miranda1 rights, and defendant agreed to speak with Kemper. Defendant said he had gotten the car from “Fred Smith,” a “black dude” who lived in Vallejo. Smith had let defendant borrow the car, which defendant had promised to return the following day. Defendant claimed the debit cards were in the Honda when he took it and he had asked Smith if the cards were stolen and Smith had said, “[N]o.”