 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Auzenne3/19/2003
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petition denied.
Following the denial of defendant's suppression motion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), he pled no contest to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and the court sentenced him to a 16-month low term. He filed a notice of appeal, but his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. His petition for a writ of mandate to compel the issuance of a certificate of probable cause was denied by this court in case No. E031636 and the Supreme Court denied review in case No. S106890. He has filed both an appeal and a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his appeal, he contends he was denied his right to put on a thorough suppression hearing by the trial court's refusal to permit effective cross-examination. In his habeas petition, he contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel did not properly advise him of the consequences of his plea. We consolidated the habeas petition with the appeal for hearing and decision. We affirm the judgment and deny the petition.
1. Defendant's appeal.
On appeal, defendant contends he was denied his right to put on a thorough suppression hearing by the trial court's refusal to permit him to effectively cross-examine the deputy who stopped his vehicle. The People respond the appeal must be dismissed for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause and, in any event, it lacks merit. We agree that defendant's contention lacks merit.
A defendant who has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere and who seeks to appeal may not obtain review of "certificate" issues, that is, questions going to the legality of the proceedings unless he has obtained a certificate of probable cause for the appeal. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1088.) However, he may obtain review of "noncertificate" issues, that is, postplea questions not challenging his plea's validity and/or questions involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested pursuant to section 1538.5. (Mendez, at p. 1088.)
Defendant argues no certificate is necessary because he brought a section 1538.5 motion and the trial court's failure to permit effective cross-examination involves an issue related to that hearing. He argues the court's evidentiary rulings affected his ability to attack the credibility of the prosecution's witness which then affected the search and seizure issue. Assuming his appeal is properly before the court, as he argues, we affirm the denial of the suppression motion.
Defendant claims his cross-examination of San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy Trahin was focused on one goal -- impeachment of the deputy's testimony that he stopped defendant's car because it had an expired registration and inoperative license plate lights. Seeking to prove he was unlawfully stopped, defendant attempted to show the deputy had an ulterior motive for stopping the vehicle by inquiring about the deputy's activities before the stop. Defendant wanted to establish that the deputy followed him from a house where the deputy believed drugs were being manufactured and he intended to search defendant's vehicle. Consequently, the deputy did not testify truthfully about his reason for stopping defendant and the stop and detention were improper.
Whether the deputy lawfully stopped and detained defendant turns on an objective assessment of the deputy's actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him and not on his state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken. (Maryland v. Macon (1985) 472 U.S. 463, 470-471; Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806; People v. Miranda (1993)
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|