People v. Roberson CA2/6
Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Roberson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B323314 (Super. Ct. No. BA497602) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
JESSE ROBERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
Jesse Roberson appeals an order of probation granted following his nolo contendere plea to possession of an assault weapon, and possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, §§ 30605, subd. (a), 29800, subd. (a)(1).)1 We conclude that the trial court properly denied Roberson’s motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The trial court held a preliminary examination and held Roberson to answer for two counts of felony unlawful firearm
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
possession. Roberson later filed a motion to suppress evidence of the firearm, among other things, seized by Los Angeles police officers during Roberson’s detention and arrest. On July 14, 2022, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing regarding Roberson’s suppression motion. Witness testimony and a police body-camera videotape set forth this evidence: At approximately 11:00 p.m., on the evening of April 10, 2021, Los Angeles Police Officers Robert Resurreccion and Kiyan Afshar were patrolling Manchester and Halldale Avenues in a marked patrol vehicle. The officers drove near a strip mall which contained a nightclub. They noticed Roberson standing by the open driver’s door of a parked Mercedes vehicle. He appeared nervous and startled as they approached. Roberson then turned toward the interior of the vehicle and made a tossing or throwing motion. The officers parked their vehicle and walked toward Roberson who was wearing a “tactical type vest” with an empty firearm holster, and a badge. The back of the vest was marked “Security.” The officers asked Roberson if he was armed, and he responded that he was not. Concerned that Roberson discarded contraband inside the Mercedes, the officers asked him to step away from the vehicle and onto the sidewalk. Resurreccion then decided to conduct a pat-down search of Roberson. Prior to the pat-down, Roberson informed the officers that he carried a knife on his person. Resurreccion placed Roberson in handcuffs during the pat-down and investigation. Resurreccion then walked to the Mercedes vehicle and illuminated the inside through the fully open driver’s door. Without breaching the threshold, he saw a semiautomatic handgun near the driver’s seat. The officers arrested Roberson
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)