People v. Alonzo CA5
F081532
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Officers stopped a pickup; a canine alerted and officers found 113 grams of meth, weapons, and a hotel room key card in the vehicle.
- Hotel records showed the room was registered to Indica Alonzo; Detective Arvizu created a perimeter and began preparing a search-warrant application.
- Alonzo exited the hotel with a green duffel bag and was detained; officers took the duffel and completed a pat-down but did not search it or the room until a warrant issued.
- The warrant was approved about 15–30 minutes after detention; the subsequent search revealed 20.5 grams meth in the duffel and a loaded shotgun in the hotel room.
- Alonzo pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale, received three years' probation (with work release and community service), and appealed, challenging suppression and the probation term.
- The appellate court denied suppression and vacated and remanded solely to resolve modification of probation under Assembly Bill 1950.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was Alonzo's detention before issuance of the warrant a de facto arrest requiring suppression? | Detention was minimally intrusive, brief, and necessary to prevent evidence destruction (exigent circumstances). | Detention was an unreasonably prolonged, warrantless arrest without probable cause; evidence should be suppressed. | Detention was supported by articulable suspicion and exigent circumstances, was limited to ~15–30 minutes, and did not convert into a de facto arrest; suppression denied. |
| 2) Does Assembly Bill 1950 (limiting felony probation to two years) apply retroactively to Alonzo? | N/A (People agreed she is entitled). | Alonzo argued she is entitled to the amended, shorter probation term. | Assembly Bill 1950 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases; Alonzo is entitled to its benefit. |
| 3) Remedy: Should the appellate court directly reduce probation or remand? | People: remand so court and prosecutor can accept the shorter term or withdraw the plea. | Defendant: modify probation now to two years. | Remand for the trial court to impose probation consistent with AB 1950 and to permit the People and trial court to withdraw from the plea agreement if they do not accede. |
| 4) If plea is withdrawn and case retried, is any new sentence capped by the original plea term? | People argued remand should allow full resentencing (no cap). | Alonzo contended any new sentence cannot exceed original plea bargain term. | Court follows Stamps/Collins analysis: no cap; parties are returned to status quo ante and resentencing is not limited by the original bargain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (exigent circumstances can justify temporary seizure pending a warrant to prevent evidence destruction)
- Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (temporary detention to secure premises while obtaining a warrant can be reasonable when balanced against privacy interests)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (unreasonably prolonged detention that is effectively an arrest requires probable cause)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980) (fruits of an unlawful seizure must be suppressed)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (distinguishes consensual encounters, detentions, and arrests for Fourth Amendment analysis)
- People v. Celis, 33 Cal.4th 667 (2004) (discusses standard distinguishing investigative detention from de facto arrest)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (2020) (remand procedure when ameliorative changes to law affect negotiated plea terms; parties may withdraw plea if court acts)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (1978) (post-decriminalization procedure allowing refiling but limiting resentencing in certain contexts)
- People v. Hernandez, 55 Cal.App.5th 942 (2020) (interpretation of remand and withdrawal procedure for plea agreements when statutory changes affect negotiated terms)