People v. Neal CA5

California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 2013 No. F065983Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the initial detention of the defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion and that his subsequent flight provided probable cause for arrest, thereby justifying the search incident to arrest.

Issues

Did the officers have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant based on his proximity to a brandishing suspect?
Did the defendant's flight from a lawful detention provide probable cause for arrest under Penal Code section 148?
Was the search of the defendant's cell phone justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In light of the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that defendant might be involved in criminal activity.”

“Because defendant was lawfully detained, he had no right to resist the detention and flee when the officers ordered him to stop.”

“With probable cause to arrest, the officers were entitled to search defendant incident to the arrest.”

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Neal CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F065983 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F11905543) v.

BYRON LEE NEAL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge. Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Oakley, J.† † Judge of the Madera Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

After his suppression motion was denied, defendant Byron Lee Neal pled no contest to two counts of second degree robbery and admitted one firearm enhancement. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. We will affirm. BACKGROUND Defendant and another male were involved in crimes against two people who drove into a fast food restaurant parking lot. Defendant was later arrested on another matter. He was searched and found to be carrying a cell phone stolen during the prior crimes. The cell phone contained pictures of defendant. When confronted with the evidence, defendant admitted participating in the crimes. The victims also identified him as one of the perpetrators. Defendant was charged with two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 two counts of criminal threats (§ 422), and two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). The robbery charges were accompanied by allegations that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and was personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Connected to the assault charges were allegations that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Defendant pled not guilty. He twice moved to suppress the evidence, and both motions were denied. Defendant changed his plea and pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain was convicted of the two robbery counts and one firearm allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The remaining counts were dismissed.

People v. Neal CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief