People v. Fernandez, 145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51

Defendant Walter Fernandez was convicted of second degree robbery (count 1) and willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant, or child’s parent (count 2); he pled to counts 3–5 involving firearms and ammunition.
The trial court imposed a 14-year sentence, with enhancements for the gang finding on count 1 and other concurrent terms.
Fernandez challenged a warrantless search of his apartment, the admission of evidence of an attempted murder arrest, the sufficiency of the gang finding, and a Pitchess motion.
The court denied the suppression motion; the appellate court reversed count 2 on Pitchess review and otherwise affirmed the judgment, with an in camera review ordered for the officer’s files.
Evidence at trial included a knife, a sawed-off shotgun, a butterfly knife, Drifters gang paraphernalia, and gang tattoos; the prosecution relied on gang expert testimony to establish active Drifters membership and the gang-related robbery.
For Pitchess, the appellate court conditioned reversal of count 2 on in camera review of the officer’s personnel records; otherwise, the conviction stood.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrantless search suppression ruling	Randolph controls; cotenant consent invalid if objecting co-tenant present.	Consent by cotenant after arrest should not validate search; Randolph requires exclusion.	Search upheld; cotenant consent valid after arrest.
Admission of evidence of an arrested suspect in apartment	Admission appropriate to show gang association and activity.	Evidence of the attempted murder arrest in the apartment was improper base.	Not necessary to suppress; admissible in context.
Sufficiency of gang finding	Evidence showed defendant’s active Drifters membership and criminal activity benefiting the gang.	Insufficient proof of gang enhancement beyond conjecture.	Evidence sufficient to support true finding on the gang allegation.
Pitchess motion denial	Discovery of personnel records potentially material to credibility and bias.	Records contain exculpatory material; denial improper.	Remanded for in camera review; Pitchess issue unresolved except for count 2.

Randolph v. United States, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (co-occupant consent limits without objecting presence; social expectations)
U.S. v. Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (co-tenant consent after removal may invalidate search in some circuits)
Hudspeth v. Lab, 518 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2008) (extends Randolph where objecting co-tenant not present)
Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejects Murphy; preserves Randolph limits on co-occupant consent)
U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third-party consent valid when cohabitant lacks standing to object)
United States v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (shared premises consent authority; consent by a co-occupant in shared spaces)