People v. Breazell CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 4, 2016 No. F069941Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for possession of ammunition by a felon, finding no arguable issues on appeal after an independent review of the record.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance for self-representation under Faretta.
Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by withdrawing a motion to quash a search warrant.
Whether the trial court erred in its rulings regarding the disclosure of a confidential informant and the validity of a search warrant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“After a thorough review of the record, we agree there are no arguable issues in this case.”

“A motion made pursuant to Faretta may be denied if it is made after trial has commenced and would necessitate a continuance.”

“Tactical decisions such as this based on an informed decision and strategy are within the discretion of the trial attorney.”

Filed 10/4/16 P. v. Breazell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F069941 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR044192) v.

LEON O'FARRELL BREAZELL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Joseph A. Soldani, Judge. Peter J. Boldin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Leon O’Farrell Breazell was found guilty of illegal possession of ammunition. After reviewing the record, appellate counsel could not identify any arguable issues. We

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

have thoroughly reviewed the record and concur there are no arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY At one point, Breazell had three different complaints pending which were consolidated upon motion by the prosecutor. The first amended consolidated complaint appears to contain six causes of action, all drug or firearm offenses, and numerous enhancements.1 Breazell filed two separate motions to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5,2 contending in both motions the evidence seized was obtained as a result of an illegal search. The trial court heard the motions to suppress in conjunction with the preliminary hearing. After argument by the parties, the trial court granted both motions. As a result of the trial court’s ruling, the information contained only two causes of action, both arising out of the same incident. Count one charged Breazell with being a felon in possession of a firearm (the firearm count). (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1).) Count two charged him with being a felon in possession of ammunition (the ammunition count). (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1).) Both counts alleged Breazell had served two prior prison sentences within the meaning of section 667.5, and he committed both offenses while on bail or released on his own recognizance.3 Prior to trial, Breazell moved to require the prosecutor to disclose the identity of the confidential informant who provided the police with the information which was used to obtain a search warrant. During the search, the officers discovered the firearm and

People v. Breazell CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief