People v. Charowhas CA4/3

Filed 1/22/25 P. v. Charowhas CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064123

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI22003774)

MARK LEE CHAROWHAS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Christopher S. Pallone, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa

A. Mandel and Joseph C. Anagnos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Two deputies pulled over motorcyclist Mark Lee Charowhas for traffic violations at night. Charowhas was wearing a thick jacket, and he had a pocketknife clipped to his hip in plain view. He also appeared nervous, was extremely shaky, would not answer certain questions, would not maintain eye contact, seemed as if he intended to fight or flee, and kept moving his hand toward different parts of his body, including his pockets. The deputies patted him down for additional weapons, and as they did so, Charowhas admitted to having metal knuckles in his pocket. Charowhas was charged with possession of metal knuckles, among other things. Before trial, the defense moved to suppress all physical evidence obtained during the search. The trial court denied the motion, finding the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. A jury convicted Charowhas of possessing metal knuckles. Charowhas contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. We disagree. Considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonably prudent officer would have suspected Charowhas might be armed and dangerous; the deputies therefore had reasonable suspicion to conduct a patdown search for weapons. FACTS The following facts are derived from the hearing on Charowhas’s motion to suppress. (People v. Moore (2006) 39 Cal.4th 168, 171 [“review of ruling on suppression motion limited to record of suppression hearings”].) One evening in March 2022, at about 9:30 p.m., two Sheriff’s deputies in a patrol car observed a motorcycle with an obstructed license