P. v. Quintanar CA3

Filed 5/15/13 P. v. Quintanar CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)

THE PEOPLE, C071795

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF120321A)

v.

GUY QUINTANAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following the denial of his suppression motion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Guy Quintanar pled no contest to possession of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) in exchange for a three-year prison term to be served in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion because the evidence obtained against him was the product of his being unlawfully detained. Defendant also contends that he is entitled to additional presentence conduct credits. We reject defendant’s unlawful detention claim, but agree with him that he is entitled to the custody credits he seeks.

1

FACTS FROM SUPPRESSION HEARING The parties agreed the suppression motion would be limited to “the initial contact of the stop” of defendant made by Deputy Nick Gomes. Hence, our statement of the facts is similarly limited. On May 6, 2012, around 2:30 a.m. Deputy Gomes and his partner were traveling in a marked sheriff’s vehicle in the number 2 lane westbound on Fremont Street in Stockton when Deputy Gomes observed defendant in the middle of the lane directly in front of him. Defendant was straddling a bicycle, his feet were on the ground, the bicycle was not moving and it was positioned as if defendant had been pushing or riding it across Fremont. It was “very dark,” the bicycle had no lights or reflectors and Deputy Gomes did not see defendant until the last second before stopping. Deputy Gomes activated his emergency lights to alert potential drivers behind him of the stop and directed defendant to get off the bicycle and to sit on a nearby lawn. The bicycle was a mountain bike and had a small trailer connected to the back of it. One of the trailer’s wheels was “not on very well.” The trailer was eventually searched and items stolen from a nearby Regional Transit Division facility were found. TRIAL COURT’S RULING In making its ruling, the trial court stated: “The Court has looked also at Vehicle Code Section 24250[1] which states that during darkness a vehicle shall be equipped with lighting equipment as required for the vehicle by this chapter and has taken that into consideration as well as the fact that there were no reflectors as indicated in the exhibits and pursuant to the officer’s testimony. [¶] For purposes of a stop . . . the People do not have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a Vehicle Code violation occurred but