In re FRANK S.,
Filed 8/21/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re FRANK S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK S., Defendant and Appellant.
|
A110995
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0102291)
|
Defendant Frank S. contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence discovered incident to his arrest. He argues that the arresting officer's violation of the knock-and-announce rule requires exclusion of the evidence. The claim fails because the United Supreme Court recently held in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) 547 U.S. ___ [126 S.Ct. 2159] that violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not justify application of the exclusionary rule. In the unpublished parts of this decision, we also reject defendant's claims that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the California Youth Authority and that the court failed to exercise its discretion in setting the maximum term of confinement.[1]
Procedural Background
A petition filed in Contra Costa County Juvenile Court alleged that defendant Frank S. (born in October 1987) came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[2] based on an allegation of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The petition alleged nine prior sustained offenses for purposes of disposition. The juvenile court sustained the petition.
At the dispositional hearing, the court committed defendant to the California Youth Authority for a maximum term of 132 months.[3]
Factual Background
In the afternoon on March 20, 2005, Pittsburg Police Officer Don Pearman was patrolling the El Pueblo neighborhood, an area with a high rate of drug-related crime. As Pearman drove on Ronnie Street, he saw defendant (whom he recognized from numerous previous contacts) walking in his direction on the sidewalk. Defendant was wearing a black jacket bearing sports team emblems. As Pearman drove past, defendant looked away and seemed to try to conceal himself behind a companion.
Pearman suspected that defendant was trying not to be recognized because he was on parole with a condition barring him from being in that area. Pearman had warned defendant in the past that he faced the possibility of arrest if Pearman ever saw him in that area.
Pearman decided against stopping defendant at that point because â€
