People v. Chavez

Filed 9/10/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B303298 (Super. Ct. No. 2018033279) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ROBERT ANTHONY CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Does Penal Code1 section 1538.5 require the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing when the defendant’s stated issue to be decided is not relevant to the motion to suppress? The answer is no. The order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed. FACTS Robert Anthony Chavez was charged with misdemeanor resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1). Chavez moved to suppress all tangible and intangible evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 on the ground that his initial detention was unlawful.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise indicated.

The People asked the trial court to deny the motion without a hearing. The People reasoned that even assuming the initial detention was unlawful, it would not be a basis for suppressing evidence of a violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1). The court agreed, and denied the motion without a hearing. Chavez appealed to the appellate division of the superior court. The appellate division reversed. The court held that section 1538.5 always requires an evidentiary hearing absent a stipulation of facts. (Citing People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, 728.) The court ordered its opinion published. We ordered the appeal transferred. DISCUSSION Section 1538.5, subdivision (c)(1) provides, “Whenever a search or seizure motion is made in the superior court as provided in this section, the judge or magistrate shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.” The People argue that here there is no issue of fact necessary to determine the motion. They cite In re Richard G. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1262 (Richard G.) for the proposition that the exclusionary rule does not apply to a new and distinct crime, even if it occurred during or immediately after an unlawful detention. In Richard G., police officers received a radio call that two males outside a residence were causing a disturbance. The officers saw two males fitting the description given in the radio dispatch walking near a park. The officers ordered the males to stop and sit on the ground. The defendant refused and threatened the officers. One of the officers grabbed the defendant to place him in a control hold. The defendant resisted and