P. v. Granados

Filed 6/15/06 P. v. Granados CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

This is an appeal by the People from an order of the trial court dismissing drug-related charges after the court granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop. Previously, another judge had denied defendant's motion to suppress the same evidence. We hold that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the renewed motion and we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

San Francisco Police Officers Kenneth Nieman and Lori Dutra detained defendant Armando Granados after observing him riding his bicycle on the sidewalk. While Officer Dutra asked for defendant's personal information and prepared to issue a citation, Officer Nieman requested consent to search defendant's backpack. Defendant granted consent and the officer discovered marijuana in the backpack. Officer Dutra subsequently also discovered cocaine in the backpack.

The District Attorney of San Francisco County filed an information charging defendant with possession of cocaine for sale (count one; Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and possession of marijuana for sale (count two; Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). After two other judges denied defendant's motion to suppress the drug evidence discovered during the traffic stop, Judge Kay Tsenin granted the motion. Judge Tsenin dismissed the charges against defendant.

Discussion

The People contend that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting defendant's renewed motion to suppress. We agree.

At the preliminary hearing, defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his backpack; Judge Perker Meeks denied the motion. Subsequently, defendant renewed the motion to suppress at a special hearing before Judge Charles Haines. One issue raised during the hearing was whether defendant had identification; if so, that raised the possibility that the detention was unduly prolonged, because the testimony at the preliminary hearing suggested that issuance of the citation was delayed while Officer Dutra called dispatch to verify defendant's identity. The parties submitted the motion to suppress without presenting more testimony to clarify that factual issue, and Judge Haines denied the motion.

Defendant subsequently renewed the motion to suppress. The basis of the renewed motion was newly discovered evidence. Judge Tsenin heard testimony from Officers Nieman and Dutra that contrary to Officer Neiman's testimony at the preliminary hearing, Officer Dutra did not contact dispatch during the traffic stop. The judge also heard testimony that defendant's wallet contained two pieces of identification. Judge Tsenin granted the motion to suppress, but not because the new evidence showed that the detention was unduly prolonged. In fact, she expressly found that the detention was not unduly prolonged. Nevertheless, she concluded that the search was illegal because Officer Nieman's request for consent to search the backpack was not supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Judge Tsenin's conclusion that such suspicion was required was a purely legal determination not affected by the new evidence.

Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (i)^[1] permits a defendant who has made an unsuccessful motion to suppress at a preliminary hearing to renew the motion at a special hearing before trial. As a general rule, determination of the section 1538.5 motion deprives the superior court of jurisdiction to reconsider the matter. (People v. Sotelo (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 264, 269, citing Madril v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 73, 77-78; see also § 1538.5, subd. (m).) Section 1538.5 does not prohibit a defendant from making a new motion based upon grounds either unavailable or unknown to defendant at the time of his prior motion. (People v. Superior Court (Edmonds) (1971) 4 Cal.3d 605, 611; see also § 1538.5, subd. (h).)

In this case, the justification for the renewed motion was the discovery of new evidence, but Judge Tsenin did not grant the motion on the basis of the new evidence. Instead, she granted the motion based on a legal determination unrelated to the new evidence. In doing so, Judge Tsenin effectively reconsidered Judge Haines' ruling, which was an action in excess of the court's jurisdiction.

Instead of disputing this analysis of the jurisdictional issue, defendant contends that the People waived this objection because they failed to raise it below. In fact, defendant asserts that the People acquiesced in Judge Tsenin's reconsideration of all issues. Even assuming that were the case, defendant's argument fails because the People were powerless to confer on the court, by consent, jurisdiction to reconsider the motion. (People v. Thomas (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 496, 501.)

Because we conclude that Judge Tsenin acted in excess of the court's jurisdiction in granting the motion to suppress, we need not address the merits of the motion to suppress.

Disposition

The trial court's order dismissing the charges against defendant is reversed.

GEMELLO, J.

We concur.

JONES, P.J.

SIMONS, J.

People v. Granados (A110344)

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Apartment Manager Lawyers.

[1] All further statutory citations herein are to the Penal Code.