People v. Gonzales

Opinion

ELKINGTON,

Following an unsuccessful Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence essential to his conviction, defendant Gonzales pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of receiving stolen property. Proved, or admitted, were two prior convictions of felony. On his appeal from the judgment entered upon his plea, he urges error

only

in the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

[1196]

On his motion in the superior court, he contended that he had been unconstitutionally detained, and thus “seized,” by a police officer, which official misconduct led to discovery that the automobile occupied by him was stolen. He repeats the contention here on his appeal.

Our function on such an appeal is established by the authority of

People

v.

Lawler

(1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160 [107 Cal.Rptr. 13, 507 P.2d 621], as follows:

“ “ A proceeding under section 1538.5 to suppress evidence is one in which a full hearing is held on the issues before the [trial] court

sitting as a finder of fact.

” . . .’ In such a proceeding the power to judge the credibility of the witnesses, resolve any conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence and draw factual inferences, is vested in the trial court. On appeal all presumptions favor the exercise of that power, and the trial court’s findings on such matters, whether

express or implied,

must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (Latter italics added.)

We relate the mainly uncontroverted evidence as it was presumably found true by the superior court.

Around 12:30 a.m. one morning a