People v. Mays CA2/8
Filed 5/31/24 P. v. Mays CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B332772
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA507883) v.
PHINA MAYS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry A. Bork, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
**********
Defendant and appellant Phina Mays pled no contest to one misdemeanor count of having a concealed firearm in a vehicle and was placed on probation. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Officer Eric Hernandez of the Los Angeles Police Department testified to the following facts regarding defendant’s detention and the recovery of the firearm from the car in which she was a passenger. Officer Hernandez was the only witness at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress. Several minutes of his body camera footage was admitted into evidence. On August 19, 2021, around 10:30 p.m., Officer Hernandez was working a gang enforcement detail with his partner in a marked patrol car. They were “conducting extra patrol” in the area of Hyde Park and West Boulevard “due to a high increase in shootings, narcotics-related offenses” and “specifically sales” at that particular intersection. That area and the general vicinity were known territory of the Rolling 60’s gang—a stronghold where gang members were known to congregate. As they approached the intersection, Officer Hernandez noticed two men standing in the parking lot of the convenience store located on the corner, one of whom was wearing a black T- shirt and the other a blue shirt and a hat. The men appeared to be “loitering” and were approximately three to five feet from a Toyota Corolla that had been reversed into a parking space with the headlights still on. Officer Hernandez pulled the patrol car into the center of the parking lot and parked. The body camera footage shows the patrol
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)