P. v. Figueroa CA2/5

Filed 4/16/13 P. v. Figueroa CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B244015

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA122831) v.

JOSE FIGUEROA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Schuur, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, Jose Figueroa, appeals from a judgment following a plea agreement and issuance of a probable cause certificate. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues. We affirm the judgment. On December 13, 2011, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Paul Merino saw defendant change lanes without signaling, a violation of Vehicle Code section 22107. This caused a vehicle on the other lane to stop abruptly, almost rear-ending defendant’s car. Deputy Merino conducted a traffic stop. Defendant was asked for his driver’s license and registration. Defendant responded he had a driver’s license but did not have it with him. While talking with defendant, Deputy Merino smelled a marijuana odor. Defendant was directed to exit his car. Defendant was placed in the back of Deputy Merino’s patrol car. Deputy Merino walked his narcotics dog to the car. As this was happening, defendant pounded on the screen window and loudly cursed. Deputy Merino went back to the patrol car. Defendant was asked if there was anything in his car that would harm the dog. Defendant replied, “Let’s see how good your dog is.” Deputy Merino had the dog enter the car to sniff its interior. The dog sniffed the rear of the back and alerted Deputy Merino to a cardboard box. Inside the box, Deputy Merino found three brick-sized packages containing cocaine bricks wrapped in tape. Deputy Merino confiscated the box and arrested defendant. When cross-examined, Deputy Merino admitted he did not find marijuana or drug paraphernalia in the car. Nor was there marijuana or drug paraphernalia on defendant’s person. In addition, defendant was not tested to see if defendant was under the influence of marijuana. Deputy Merino did not obtain a search warrant before searching defendant’s car. Deputy Merino denied receiving any prior information that defendant possessed drugs before conducting the traffic stop. The March 12, 2012 information charged defendant in two counts with transportation and possession for sale of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11352, subd. (a).) The information alleged as to both counts, the cocaine weighed in excess of 2,911 grams within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision