People v. Smart CA3

Filed 9/4/24 P. v. Smart CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100248

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE021151)

v.

MICHAEL JAMAAL SMART,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Michael Jamaal Smart pled no contest to possessing a firearm having been convicted of a felony. Following sentencing, defendant appealed from the denial of his suppression motion. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Finding none, we affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND “ ‘In reviewing a suppression ruling, “we defer to the superior court’s express and implied factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence” ’ ” and “ ‘view the evidence in a light most favorable to the order denying the motion to suppress,’ ” meaning “ ‘[a]ny conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the superior court ruling.’ ” (People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 979.) We recite the relevant facts in light of this deferential standard. On the day after Christmas, the Sacramento Police Department stationed police officers at the mall to deal with violence between juveniles that frequently occurred that day. Mall patrons reported to some of these police officers that multiple people were yelling at each other in a department store. By the time the officers arrived at the reported location on the second floor, the disturbance was over and the perpetrators had left. Then, the department store’s security reported that two people had an altercation or argument and one of them was armed with a handgun. The department store’s security personnel described the armed suspect as an adult male wearing a green jacket with a gun in the right pocket and carrying a black backpack. They described the other suspect as an adult male wearing a blue jacket. The department store’s security personnel also reported that they had found security footage of the disturbance and fast-forwarded it to determine the suspects had gone down the escalator to the Polo section in the department store. Officers went downstairs and found defendant wearing a green jacket and carrying a black bag with another man wearing a blue jacket. An officer asked defendant if he had been involved in the disturbance upstairs, and defendant denied being involved. The officer advised defendant he was going to perform a patdown search for weapons, and defendant responded that he did not consent to a search and repeatedly informed the officer that he was not on probation or parole. The officer grabbed defendant’s wrist, and defendant asked the officer not to search him.