P. v. Rowland CA2/3

Filed 5/16/13 P. v. Rowland CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B240508

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA054606) v.

NICHOLAS KELLEY ROWLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carol Koppel, Judge. Affirmed. Bruce Zucker; Edwin Aimufua , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Defendant and appellant, Nicholas Kelley Rowland, appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of marijuana, with prior serious felony conviction and prior prison term enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11360; Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5). Rowland was sentenced to state prison for six years. The judgment is affirmed. BACKGROUND Viewed in accordance with the usual rule of appellate review (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence established the following. 1. Prosecution evidence. On the afternoon of November 2, 2011, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Nathan Grimes and his partner visited the manager of an apartment complex in Lancaster to discuss recent narcotics activity there. During the visit, Grimes witnessed what “appeared to be a hand-to-hand [drug] transaction” between defendant Rowland and another person, although Grimes was too far away to see what had been exchanged. Soon after, Rowland drove off in his van.1 Grimes and his partner left in their patrol car in order to keep an eye on him. Moments later, Rowland failed to stop at a limit line and failed to signal while changing lanes, so Grimes made a traffic stop. When Grimes approached the van, he noticed a strong odor of marijuana. He ordered Rowland to exit and asked if he had anything illegal. Rowland said he had marijuana and consented to a search. Inside his pocket, Rowland had a container of marijuana. He also had $450 in one pocket and $51 in a second pocket. There was a cell phone on the driver’s seat. There was marijuana in a plastic container under the driver’s