People v. Holmes CA3
Filed 12/6/23 P. v. Holmes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----
THE PEOPLE, C097109
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62186136)
v.
CLARENCE AUSTIN HOLMES,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Clarence Austin Holmes was detained by law enforcement after exiting a truck that did not have license plates. A records search revealed the truck’s registration was expired and defendant was on searchable probation. A subsequent search of the truck revealed a loaded handgun in the center console. The parties stipulated that defendant was previously convicted of a felony.
1
A jury convicted defendant of possession of a firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)),1 possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)), and carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends his detention was unlawful, and therefore, his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to move to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of this unlawful detention. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Because defendant’s trial counsel did not move to suppress evidence based on any perceived illegality of his detention, there was no hearing devoted to ascertaining the legality of that detention. However, the facts of defendant’s detention were adduced at trial and were not materially disputed below. They are as follows: On June 27, 2022, at about 12:50 p.m., Roseville Police Officer Greggory Cole received a call from dispatch informing him that a man had just stolen a battery from an AutoZone located in the Roseville Square shopping center. Officer Cole was provided a general description of the man, “a black male adult,” and told that the man left the location in “a red Dodge Ram pickup truck.” Cole was also told that the man drove the truck to another auto parts store across the street, O’Reilly Auto Parts, and parked behind the store. The officer was further informed that AutoZone did not wish to prosecute the person for the theft. Officer Cole responded to O’Reilly Auto Parts and saw a red Dodge Ram truck parked behind the store. The truck was backed up against a fence “in an area that said[,]
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)