People v. Sandoval CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 2025 No. B335726Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenges to the search exceptions by failing to raise them in the trial court, and alternatively, that the warrantless search of the vehicle was lawful under the automobile exception based on probable cause.

Issues

Did the defendant forfeit his appellate challenges to the search-incident-to-arrest and automobile exceptions by failing to raise them in the trial court?
Did the officers have probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The sole issue below was whether the stop itself was lawful. Because defendant failed to bring these two issues to the attention of the opponent and the trial court, he “waive[d] the right to raise the issue[s] on appeal.””

“The automobile exception applied to the search because the officers had probable cause to search for narcotics.”

Filed 8/25/25 P. v. Sandoval CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B335726

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA501906) v.

GERARDO SANDOVAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gustavo N. Sztraicher, Judge. Affirmed. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott. A. Taryle, and Sophia A. Lecky, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5,1 defendant Gerardo Sandoval moved to suppress evidence the police discovered in his vehicle following a traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant then entered a negotiated no contest plea to possession of firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and appeals from the judgment of conviction. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

At the hearing on defendant’s suppression motion, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Manuel Rios testified that at approximately 10:30 p.m. on December 16, 2021, he and his partner, Officer Rangel, were on patrol when he observed defendant drive through the limit line at the intersection of 33rd Street and Grand Avenue, in violation of Vehicle Code section 22450. Officer Rios conducted a traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle. During the traffic stop, Officer Rios approached the driver’s side of defendant’s vehicle, informed defendant of the violation, and requested his driver’s license. Defendant provided a California identification card instead of a driver’s license. When Officer Rios ran defendant’s identification card, the inquiry result showed that it had expired. Officer Rios observed that defendant had a pocketknife on his person. For officer safety reasons, Officer Rios asked

People v. Sandoval CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B335726

GERARDO SANDOVAL,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. Conviction

III. DISCUSSION

C. Analysis

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief