People v. Breazell CA5
F069941
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Leon O’Farrell Breazell was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (dismissed at sentencing) and ammunition (convicted), arising from a search of his residence that uncovered a TEC‑9 and ammunition.
- Pretrial, Breazell filed section 1538.5 motions to suppress; the trial court granted both motions at the preliminary hearing, but later events pared the case to two counts.
- Defense sought disclosure of the confidential informant and to quash the search warrant; after an in camera review the court denied disclosure but ordered a redacted warrant disclosure; defense counsel later withdrew the motion to quash.
- Breazell moved for new appointed counsel (Marsden); motion denied. He then sought to self‑represent (Faretta) but withdrew when the court refused a continuance.
- At trial the prosecution presented occupancy, operability testing, and admissions; jury deadlocked on the firearm count, convicted on the ammunition count, and found prior prison term enhancements true.
- Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal reviewed the record, considered Breazell’s pro se letters, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / disclosure of CI identity | Warrant supported; disclosure of redacted warrant sufficient; motion to quash lacked merit | Warrant invalid; sought CI identity and to quash warrant | Not raised timely on appeal; trial record shows in camera review and counsel withdrew quash motion after receiving redacted material; no appellate relief |
| Right to substitute counsel (Marsden) | Court properly exercised discretion in denying Marsden motion | Breazell argued counsel ineffective and sought substitution | Denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Right to self‑representation and continuance (Faretta) | Court correctly refused continuance if Faretta invoked late | Breazell contended he was entitled to continuance to prepare to self‑represent | Court properly refused continuance; Faretta motion can be denied if it would require a continuance after trial commencement |
| Alleged evidence tampering by officer | Officer’s test‑firing and cleaning were proper; no tampering shown; firearm count ultimately dismissed | Breazell alleged officer tampered and admitted it on record | Record does not support tampering; no prejudice as firearm charge dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (establishes appellate counsel Wende procedure for claiming no arguable issues)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (procedural protections for requesting substitute counsel)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (criminal defendant’s right to self‑representation)
- People v. Clark, 3 Cal.4th 41 (Faretta motion timing and continuance considerations)
- In re Lucas, 33 Cal.4th 682 (trial counsel tactical decisions; review of strategic choices)
- People v. Davis, 168 Cal.App.4th 617 (limits on raising suppression issues on appeal and counsel strategy review)
- People v. Pearson, 56 Cal.4th 393 (noting limitations/overrulings relevant to Clark)
- People v. Williams, 2 Cal.3d 894 (disagreement over tactics not grounds for substitution of counsel)