P. v. Guyette CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 25, 2013 No. F065046Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the defendant was detained when the officer retained his identification, the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, and the trial court's finding of voluntary consent to search was supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the defendant was illegally detained when the officer requested his identification and retained it.
Whether the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Whether the trial court's finding that the defendant voluntarily consented to a search was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“While Guyette’s compliance with the officer’s request that he sit on the curb and identify himself did not transform the encounter into a detention, once the officer retained Guyette’s identification document, a reasonable person would not have”

“Under the circumstances, Guyette’s presence in front of the business whose alarm had been triggered, provided reasonable suspicion to detain Guyette and investigate further.”

“If there is conflicting testimony, the reviewing court accepts the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts if those facts are supported by the record.”

Filed 6/25/13 P. v. Guyette CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F065046

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRM020110A)

CHARLES ELLIOT GUYETTE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. John D. Kirihara, Judge. Tutti Hacking, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Poochigian, J.

Charles Elliot Guyette pled no contest to three felony counts: commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),1 possession of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and forgery (§ 475, subd. (c)), and admitted a prior strike conviction. In exchange, the People agreed to the dismissal of two prior prison term enhancements and a stipulated sentence of five years four months, which the court subsequently imposed. On appeal, Guyette contends the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion because the incriminating evidence was seized while he was illegally detained, substantial evidence does not support the finding he consented to be searched, and the resulting arrest was illegal. Thus, all fruits of the detention, including his statements and the incriminating items taken from his pockets, should have been suppressed. We disagree and affirm. FACTS On October 22, 2011, at 10:45 p.m., Merced Police Officer Leon Pintabona was patrolling when he was dispatched to investigate an alarm2 at a business that was closed. He was just a block away so he responded immediately. When he arrived, he saw Guyette and co-defendant Hernandez walking at a normal pace directly in front of the building. Pintabona parked his patrol car, approached the men and asked if he could speak with them. Hernandez said “sure” and both men walked over to him. Pintabona asked the men to sit on the curb and “obtained” Guyette’s identification. Guyette testified he gave his identification to Pintabona and did not recall getting it back. Pintabona used the identification to fill out a card. About thirty seconds after Pintabona arrived, Officer Gonzales arrived. Gonzales told Pintabona there was a broken window on the side of the building and the back door was open. Pintabona had noticed that

P. v. Guyette CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE,

CHARLES ELLIOT GUYETTE, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief