People v. Hall
| Decision Date | 02 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | F060162 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEREK DELANE HALL, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. Nos. MCR028020 and MCR034947)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Jennifer R. S. Detjen, Judge.
Law Office of Allison H. Ting and Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Kelly E. LeBel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant/defendant Derek Delane Hall pleaded no contest to multiple narcotics-related offenses and was allowed to remain on bail pending his sentencing hearing in theSuperior Court of Madera County case Nos. MCR028020 and MCR031239. On the day of the sentencing hearing, defendant failed to appear, a bench warrant was issued, and narcotics agents set up a surveillance of his residence. Defendant was seen loading items into his vehicle and then he drove away. An agent conducted a traffic stop, arrested defendant on the bench warrant, searched his vehicle, and found narcotics. As a result, defendant was charged with additional narcotics offenses in case No. MCR034947.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of his vehicle and argued the agent lacked probable cause and the search was not valid as incident to his arrest. The court denied defendant's suppression motion.
On appeal, defendant challenges the court's denial of his suppression motion in case No. MCR034947. He also challenges the calculation of his conduct credits and the court's imposition of various fees.
OF CASE NOS. MCR028020 and MCR031239
On February 22, 2007, members of the Madera County Narcotics Enforcement Team (MADNET) assisted officers from the Madera County Probation Department with a probation search of Brian Brown and his residence. When the officers arrived, they found defendant hiding at the end of a hallway. An agent asked defendant for his consent to search him and defendant said to go ahead. The agent found $86 in cash, a set of car keys, and two small Ziploc bags of cocaine base in defendant's pants pockets. The agent also searched defendant's vehicle and found $600.
On December 18, 2007, an information was filed in case No. MCR028020, charging defendant with possession of cocaine base for sale with special allegations forprior convictions. Defendant pleaded not guilty, the matter was set for trial, and defendant was released on bail.
On March 18, 2008, Officer Giachino Chiaramonte of MADNET followed defendant's Chevrolet truck and then ordered another officer to conduct a traffic stop on the vehicle. Defendant's two-year-old daughter was also in the truck and was not in a child-restraint seat.
Chiaramonte testified that officers searched defendant's vehicle and found a plastic bag under the passenger seat which contained over 60 grams of marijuana. The officers also found a spray can of "Liquid Wrench" with a hidden bottom compartment. Chiaramonte unscrewed the can's false bottom and found 6.5 grams of cocaine, seven plastic bags, each of which contained 1.7 grams of cocaine base, five plastic bags, each of which contained 0.2 grams of cocaine base, and a rock of cocaine base which weighed 1.0 grams.
The officers also executed a search warrant for defendant's residence on Barcelona Way in Madera. There was $700 in cash in two nightstands in the master bedroom. In the garage, the officers found the following items inside a cooler: a bag with 28.9 grams of cocaine, a straight blade, three packages containing numerous smaller resealable plastic bags, a digital scale with cocaine residue, and a Pyrex measuring cup with white residue. The cooler also contained three large bags of marijuana, which weighed over 100 grams. A refrigerator in the garage contained an open box of bakingsoda. Officer Chiaramonte testified that baking soda is used to convert cocaine into cocaine base.3
The consolidated information
On December 8, 2008, a consolidated information was filed in case Nos. MCR028020 and MCR031239, charging defendant with count I, possession of cocaine base for sale, committed on or about February 22, 2007 (Health & Saf. Code,4§ 11351.5). Defendant was also charged with committing the following offenses on or about March 18, 2008: count II, child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 283 a, subd. (a)); counts III and IV, transportation of cocaine base (§ 11352, subd. (a)); count V, possession of cocaine base for sale; count VI, transportation of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)); count VII, possession of cocaine for sale (§ 11351); count VIII, possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359).
As to counts I, III, IV, V, and VII, it was further alleged defendant had three prior narcotics-related convictions (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)), and as to all counts, it was alleged defendant served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant's pleas to the consolidated information
On February 6, 2009, defendant pleaded no contest to counts I and III of the consolidated information and admitted two prior narcotics-related convictions, with a stipulated term of 11 years. The court dismissed the remaining charges and allegations.The parties stipulated to the probation report as the factual basis for the pleas in case Nos. MCR028020 and MCR031239.
As part of the negotiated disposition, defendant was allowed to remain on bail pending sentencing. Defendant was ordered to report to the probation officer to schedule an appointment. The court set the sentencing hearing for April 13, 2009.
Defendant's failure to appear
On April 1, 2009, the probation officer advised the court that defendant failed to appear for his appointment on February 18, 2009.
On April 13, 2009, defendant failed to appear for the sentencing hearing, and the court issued a no-bail bench warrant for defendant's arrest.
Defendant's appeal in this case is based on his challenge to the lawfulness of the warrantless search of his vehicle on April 13, 2009, which resulted in felony charges being filed in case No. MCR034947.
Defendant's arrest and the search of his vehicle5
As set forth ante, defendant remained on bail pending his sentencing hearing for his no contest pleas to the consolidated information, and he failed to appear for his sentencing hearing on April 13, 2009.
On the morning of April 13, 2009, MADNET Agent Brian Esteves was advised that defendant failed to appear and a no-bail bench warrant had been issued for his arrest. Esteves testified that he already knew defendant because he had previously arrested defendant for the sale of cocaine base, and he participated in surveillance of defendant aspart of a parole or probation search. Esteves testified he also knew that other MADNET officers had previously arrested defendant for possession for sale. Esteves testified he spoke to Officer Chiaramonte, and Chiaramonte said he had arrested defendant during that prior investigation. Esteves testified he had read the reports about that incident.
Esteves also testified that based on that information, he was aware that defendant used his vehicle to transport and possess narcotics for sale, and that defendant hid narcotics in obscure places in his vehicle, such as under the hood and in the center compartment.6
Once Agent Esteves was notified about the bench warrant, he put together a briefing plan and surveillance team to watch defendant's residence. Esteves had information that defendant was living at a residence on Jaden Court. Esteves assigned Agent Torres to watch that residence in an unmarked car.
Agent Esteves testified the surveillance of the residence began at 11:10 a.m. on April 13, 2009. About two hours later, Agent Torres advised Esteves that defendant walked from the house to a tan Ford Explorer SUV that was parked at the house, defendant put items in the Ford's rear hatch, he went back to the house, and then he put more items in the vehicle.
Agent Esteves testified that he decided not to arrest defendant when they initially saw him outside the residence because of the possibility he could run "back into the house or that type of situation."
After a few minutes of surveillance, Agent Torres advised Esteves that defendant was driving away from the residence in the Ford. Esteves, who was in a marked patrol car, caught up with defendant's Ford, activated the patrol car's lights and siren, and conducted a traffic stop. Defendant pulled over.
Esteves approached the Ford and asked defendant for identification, and defendant complied. Esteves asked defendant to get out of the vehicle, and defendant again complied. Esteves advised defendant that he was under arrest for failing to appear. Defendant said he didn't think he had to be in court until the next day. Esteves replied that the judge had issued a warrant that morning. Esteves arrested defendant and placed him in handcuffs.
Esteves testified he then searched defendant's body incident to the arrest, and found 34 unused Ziploc-style bags in his pants pocket. Esteves testified that such bags were consistent with being used for the packaging of narcotics. Esteves explained that while the baggies were common items, they were also "the most common way narcotics are packaged at the street level."
Esteves also found $92 in defendant's pocket. Esteves explained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial