P. v. Abraham CA2/7
Filed 5/30/13 P. v. Abraham CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, B244945
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA068061) v.
HECTOR ABRAHAM,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leslie A. Dunn and Martin L. Herscovitz, Judges. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Police stopped Hector Abraham and Eugene Yi in their van, suspecting them of intending to steal the third row of seats from inside parked SUVs outside a shopping mall. Inside the van, the officers found a third row of seats taken from an SUV and a woman’s wallet. They arrested Abraham and Yi. Abraham and Yi were thereafter charged in an information with one count each of second degree burglary, grand theft of personal property, receiving stolen property and possession of burglary tools. Represented by appointed counsel, Abraham denied the charges.1 Abraham’s defense counsel previously filed a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), which was heard in conjunction with the preliminary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate denied Abraham’s suppression motion and held Abraham and Yi to answer. Abraham’s defense counsel renewed the suppression motion at the trial court (Pen. Code, § 1538, subd. (i)). After reviewing the preliminary hearing transcript and listening to the testimony from prosecution witnesses who had previously testified at the preliminary hearing, the court denied the renewed suppression motion.2 According to the evidence at the suppression hearings, in 2011 the Los Angeles Police Department organized a task force in response to repeated burglaries of the third row of seats from SUVs manufactured by General Motors occurring in shopping mall parking lots in the San Fernando Valley in 2011. Officers on the task force learned that a white commercial van with paper plates and a ladder was at the scene of many of the burglaries. On June 6, 2011, task force officers noticed Abraham and Yi driving such a van slowly through a shopping mall parking lot, without parking or stopping. The officers
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)