People v. Mata CA5

Filed 10/7/21 P. v. Mata 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081969 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF373341) v.

SERGIO ANTONIO MATA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Brett R. Alldredge and Melinda Myrle Reed, Judges. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Peña, J.

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY This appeal is from a final judgment after a no contest plea and, as it concerns the denial of a motion to suppress, is authorized by Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m). STATEMENT OF THE CASE An information charged Sergio Antonio Mata with driving under the influence, with three priors (Veh. Code,1 § 23152, subd. (a); count 1), driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher, with three priors (§ 23152, subd. (b); count 2), and driving when privilege suspended, with priors (§ 14601.2, subd. (a); count 3). Counts 1 and 2 also contained a special allegation of driving with a blood alcohol level of .15 percent by weight and more (§ 23578). Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m), in which he argued that the traffic stop constituted an unfair detention. The motion was originally heard during the preliminary hearing held on May 7, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel argued that, under United States v. Colin (9th Cir. 2002) 314 F.3d 439, Mata’s act of driving on the traffic lane line for one second did not constitute a violation of section 21658, subdivision (a) and, therefore, the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The court deferred ruling on the motion until the parties could submit supplemental briefing. On October 24, 2019, the court stated that it found the officer who testified at the preliminary hearing to be “exceedingly honest, reliable, accurate, [and] dependable[.]” The court then stated that if it finds that the officer only observed weaving within the lane for a short period of time and the car just touched the line, then the court would likely grant the motion. The court then put the matter over for further consideration and argument.