P. v. Hix CA2/2

Filed 5/9/13 P. v. Hix 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B244640

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 1PK05401) v.

RONALD STEWART HIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Christian R. Gullon, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Chad R. Maddox and Chad R. Maddox for Defendant and Appellant.

Jackie Lacey, District Attorney, Phyllis Asayama and Roberta Schwartz, Deputy District Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Ronald Stewart Hix (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea and conviction of driving a vehicle while having a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, a misdemeanor in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b). Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND A misdemeanor complaint filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney alleged that on or about August 11, 2011, defendant drove a vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a), and drove a vehicle while having a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23512, subdivision (b). Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 on the ground that his arrest was illegal because the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop and detain him. Defendant’s motion to suppress was heard and testimony was taken in connection with that motion on January 24, 2012. Officer Rivera, a patrol officer assigned to the City of Pomona with 20 years of experience, testified that on August 11, 2011, at 1:00 a.m., he was driving northbound on San Antonio Street when he saw a vehicle stopped on the right curb with its brake lights on. The driver of the vehicle was talking to a female pedestrian standing on the curb. As Rivera’s vehicle approached, defendant’s car pulled away from the curb, turning eastbound onto Hawthorne Place. Rivera stopped and asked the pedestrian what was going on, and the pedestrian responded that the driver had been trying to start a conversation with her. Rivera asked the pedestrian if she knew the driver, and she said no. When asked by the prosecutor whether Rivera had an opinion as to whether or not the pedestrian was a prostitute, Rivera responded that it “wouldn’t surprise me,” given the time of day and the area, which was known for narcotics and prostitution. Rivera then proceeded to follow defendant’s vehicle as it proceeded eastbound on Hawthorne Place, a residential street with cars parked along both sides. Defendant was