Filed 1/27/20 P. v. Steele CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAYSEAN STEELE,

Defendant and Appellant.

E072341

(Super.Ct.No. FVI18003278)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bryan K. Stodghill, Judge. Affirmed.

Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

INTRODUCTION

A jury found defendant and appellant Daysean Steele guilty of misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), the lesser included offense of felony resisting an executive officer (§ 69) by force and violence as charged. Defendant was thereafter placed on formal probation for a period of 36 months on various terms and conditions of probation. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2018, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Quezada was on uniformed patrol in Victorville when he observed a green Honda Civic traveling in front of him. Deputy Quezada conducted a records check of the vehicle and discovered its registration had been expired since September 12, 2017. Deputy Quezada activated his patrol car’s overhead forward-facing red light and siren and proceeded to conduct a traffic stop of the vehicle. The car stopped at a parking lot of a gas station in Victorville.

As Deputy Quezada approached, defendant, identified as the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle, attempted to get out of the car. Deputy Quezada instructed defendant to stay inside the vehicle for his safety and advised defendant that he had pulled him over for an expired registration. Thereafter, simultaneously, Deputy Quezada saw defendant grab a box cutter from the driver’s side door compartment of the vehicle and smelled marijuana coming from inside the car. Defendant informed the deputy that he used the box cutter to turn the car on and off.

Deputy Quezada removed defendant from the car and conducted a patdown search of defendant. He also placed defendant in handcuffs and sat him in the backseat of his patrol car. Defendant told Deputy Quezada the registration was current and that he had the paperwork to prove it. Deputy Quezada examined the paperwork and found no proof of current vehicle registration. He also conducted a second records check to confirm he had not mistyped the vehicle’s license plate. The second records check confirmed the vehicle’s registration had expired on September 12, 2017. At that point, Deputy Quezada made a decision to cite defendant, release him, and have defendant’s vehicle towed under Vehicle Code section 22651.01, which authorized the deputy to tow a vehicle having a registration expired over six months.

Deputy Quezada requested a tow truck to retrieve defendant’s car. During this time, defendant was cursing at the deputy and calling him derogatory names. When the tow truck arrived, Deputy Quezada removed defendant from the back of his patrol car. The deputy also removed defendant’s handcuffs to allow defendant to retrieve any property from his vehicle before it was towed. Deputy Quezada informed defendant he was not free to leave and ordered him to sit on the curb while he filled out a citation for driving with an expired registration. Defendant refused to comply and made random derogatory statements to the deputy.

After defendant repeatedly refused to comply with the deputy’s multiple commands, Deputy Quezada decided to handcuff defendant for his safety. Defendant resisted by tensing his left arm and not allowing Deputy Quezada to place it behind defendant’s back. Deputy Quezada placed defendant on the ground, at which point defendant violently twisted his body to the right, causing Deputy Quezada to fall on rocks. Defendant also put his hands on Deputy Quezada’s chest and prevented him from standing up. After Deputy Quezada pulled himself away from defendant, defendant ran across a street into a nearby McDonald’s.

Deputy Quezada pursued defendant into the McDonald’s and saw him standing in the kitchen behind multiple employees. Due to employees being present, Deputy Quezada did not unholster his firearm or taser but instead extended his baton and walked towards defendant. Deputy Quezada commanded defendant to the ground. However, defendant refused to comply. The deputy approached defendant and brought defendant to the ground face down. While attempting to place defendant’s hands behind his back, defendant resisted by tucking his arms underneath his body. Deputy Quezada punched the right side of defendant’s face three times with his right hand in order to subdue defendant into compliance. The punches were ineffective, and defendant kept his hands tucked underneath his body. Deputy Quezada then pepper sprayed defendant, at which point he was able handcuff defendant.

Following a preliminary hearing, on November 28, 2018, an information was filed charging defendant with one count of felony resisting an executive officer (§ 69) by use of force and violence.

On February 11, 2019, defendant filed a motion to suppress all tangible and intangible evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful detention and warrantless search and seizure.

On February 13, 2019, the People filed opposition to defendant’s suppression motion, arguing exclusion of evidence was an improper remedy in the case and the detention and arrest of defendant was lawful.

On March 1, 2019, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s suppression motion.

On March 11, 2019, a jury found defendant guilty of misdemeanor resisting a peace officer, the lesser included offense of felony resisting an executive officer by force and violence as charged. At defendant’s request, immediately thereafter the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for a period of 36 months on various terms and conditions of probation.

On March 12, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

III

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

MILLER

J.