Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. BF116426B
THE COURT:It is ordered that the opinion herein filed on June 26, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. On page 3, delete the first sentence of the first paragraph under the “Statement of Facts” and replace it with the following: “On October 8, 2006, Bakersfield Police Officer Daniel McAfee was on duty with a partner when he stopped a vehicle because it did not have a front license plate, which is a violation of Vehicle Code section 5200. At the time of the stop, Officer McAfee did not have any information about the vehicle’s rear license plate.”
2. On page 3, delete the second paragraph under the “Statement of Facts” and replace it with the following:
“On January 24, 2008, Barle’s appellate counsel filed an appellant’s opening brief requesting us to conduct an independent review of the entire record and informing us she advised Barle of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. On January 28, 2008, we advised Barle she had 30 days within which to submit a letter stating any grounds of appeal she wanted us to consider.
“Barle submitted a letter brief in which she argues the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, Barle contends that the officer did not have a legal basis to stop the vehicle she was riding in because the officer did not have any information about the vehicle’s rear license plate. Relying on People v. White (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 636 (White), Barle asserts that an officer does not have sufficient cause to stop a vehicle solely because a front license plate is absent; instead, the officer also must know at the time of the stop whether the vehicle is registered in California.
“California law requires that when two license plates are issued for a vehicle, one must be attached to the front and the other to the rear of the vehicle, and prohibits operation of the vehicle without both plates attached. (Veh. Code, §§ 5200, 5202.) The lack of a front license plate has long been recognized as a legitimate basis for a traffic stop in California, and constitutes a legal basis to stop the vehicle in this case. (People v. Lee (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 836, 839; see also People v. Gonzalez (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 432, 439; United States v. Ramstad (10th Cir.2002) 308 F.3d 1139, 1146.)
“The White case does not support Barle’s contention that the officer did not have a legal basis to stop the vehicle in which she was a passenger. In White, an officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle which had an Arizona license plate affixed in the rear but had no front license plate on the belief that the absence of the front license plate constituted a Vehicle Code violation. (White, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 639, 640, 643.) Arizona law, however, requires only one license plate for motor vehicles; consequently, the court held that the officer committed a mistake of law which vitiated the officer’s basis for the stop, since the pertinent Vehicle Code provision, Vehicle Code section 5502, is violated only if the law of the issuing state is violated. (Id.. at p. 643 & fn. 8.) Since there was no Vehicle Code violation, the court concluded the officer’s suspicion founded on a mistake of law could not constitute the reasonable basis required for a lawful traffic stop. (Id. at pp. 643-644.)
“In contrast here, there is nothing to suggest the officer committed a mistake of law. Officer McAfee stopped the vehicle because it did not have a license plate affixed at the front, i.e. it appeared to be out of compliance with California law. Although as White demonstrates there might be a legitimate basis for not having a front license plate affixed to the vehicle, the absence of a front license plate constituted a reasonable basis to stop the vehicle and inquire as to whether the vehicle was in compliance with California law.
“Barle also requests in her letter brief that her appellate counsel be relieved because her counsel was unwilling to argue this issue on appeal, and asks us to appoint another attorney who could make this argument. We interpret this claim as one of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Barle must demonstrate that her counsel’s performance was deficient and she suffered prejudice as a result. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 684-685, 687, 691-692; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218.) We do not find there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (Strickland at p. 694) because, even if appellate counsel had raised the argument Barle claims she should have, any argument would have been futile. (See People v. Jones (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 820, 827 [counsel is not required to advance meritless arguments].) We therefore reject Barle’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and her request for appointment of other appellate counsel.”
This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
The application requesting this court to review the attachments contained in the petition for rehearing is granted.
The petition for rehearing is denied.