legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Lamont

P. v. Lamont
03:02:2007

P


P. v. Lamont


Filed 2/9/07  P. v. Lamont CA4/3


Opinion on remand from Supreme Court


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION THREE







THE PEOPLE,


      Plaintiff and Respondent,


            v.


MATTHEW GORDON LAMONT,


      Defendant and Appellant.



         G032369


         (Super. Ct. No. 02NF1341)


         O P I N I O N


                        Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carla M. Singer, Judge.  Affirmed.


                        Edward A. Hoffman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


                        Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. T. Carlton and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


                        After the trial court denied Matthew Gordon Lamont's motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to possessing a destructive device or explosive on a public street, possessing a destructive device or explosive with the intent to injure or destroy property, transporting a destructive device, and possessing materials with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive.  The court sentenced him to three years in state prison. 


                        On appeal, Lamont challenged the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.  Lamont argued that as a passenger in the car, he was seized when the police officer illegally stopped the car in which he was riding in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.  In this court's prior published opinion People v. Lamont (2004)


125 Cal.App.4th 404 (Lamont), we agreed and reversed the judgment. 


                        The California Supreme Court granted review in Lamont[1] and has now remanded the case to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider our decision in light of People v. Brendlin (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1107 (Brendlin) and People v. Saunders (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1129 (Saunders).  We have followed the court's directions and now reject Lamont's challenge to the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.  We affirm the judgment. 


FACTS[2]


                        Long Beach Police Officer Erik Herzog was conducting surveillance of the â€





Description After the trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to possessing a destructive device or explosive on a public street, possessing a destructive device or explosive with the intent to injure or destroy property, transporting a destructive device, and possessing materials with the intent to make a destructive device or explosive. The court sentenced him to three years in state prison.
On appeal, Lamont challenged the trial court's denial of his suppression motion. Lamont argued that as a passenger in the car, he was seized when the police officer illegally stopped the car in which he was riding in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. In this court's prior published opinion People v. Lamont (2004)
125 Cal.App.4th 404 (Lamont), court agreed and reversed the judgment.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale