P. v. Van Hoose
Filed 8/7/06 P. v. Van Hoose CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM GREGORY VAN HOOSE, Defendant and Appellant. | C049907
(Super. Ct. No. 04F8025)
|
Defendant William Gregory Van Hoose was convicted after a court trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of ammunition. (Pen. Code, §§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), 12316, subd. (b)(1).)[1] After finding defendant had a prior strike, the trial court sentenced him to 32 months in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress statements he made to sheriff's deputies and evidence derived from those statements. The trial court conducted a combined court trial and hearing on the suppression motion. Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 387), and denial of defendant's motion to suppress (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922), the record reveals the following facts taken from the combined suppression hearing and court trial:
Shasta County Sheriff's Deputy Christopher McQuillan was on patrol on September 30, 2004, when he received a call regarding a person refusing to leave a residence on Akrich Street in Shasta Lake. McQuillan responded to the call with Deputy O'Hern following in the patrol car behind him. While en route to the address, the deputies were informed that the subject was reported to be armed with a handgun.
As McQuillan got out of his patrol car, he saw two people, a man named Randy O'Reilly with whom he had previous contact and a woman. They were arguing with a third person whom he could not see because the person was behind some cars. McQuillan was concerned because there was a report of a weapon present and he did not know who had the weapon. When McQuillan approached O'Reilly and the woman, he could see neither was armed or wearing clothing that could conceal a weapon. McQuillan asked O'Reilly where the gun was and O'Reilly pointed toward some vehicles and said, â€
