211 Cal. App. 4th 194
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hall called 911 after an altercation at Hawkins' home; Hall alleged Hawkins hit her with a brick and that guns and marijuana were in the house.
- Deputy Joel Macias testified Hawkins, after waiving Miranda rights, acknowledged possession of three guns, their location, and marijuana in the home, and that he consented to a search both orally and in writing.
- A search of Hawkins' residence pursuant to that consent yielded two handguns, a shotgun, and marijuana.
- Hawkins moved to suppress under §1538.5; the magistrate denied the motion.
- The information charged Hawkins with three counts of felon in possession of a firearm, one count of marijuana for sale, one count of ammunition possession, and one count of corporal injury; the court later dismissed the marijuana-for-sale charge and re-numbered counts.
- Hawkins pleaded no contest to the remaining counts; the court imposed concurrent terms and various fines including a $20 DNA penalty assessment, which the court later recognized should be amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate’s admission of hearsay affected suppression. | People contends issue preserved; hearsay improperly influenced. | Hawkins argues the hearsay should not have been admitted affecting suppression ruling. | Forfeited; no preservation for appeal; otherwise, oral consent supported denial. |
| Whether the $20 DNA penalty assessment was proper. | DNA penalty applies to fines and forfeitures only, not restitution fines. | Penalty should apply to all fines, including restitution. | Remand to amend abstract to strike $20 DNA penalty; not imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lilienthal, 22 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1978) (preservation required for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- People v. Richardson, 156 Cal.App.4th 574 (Cal. App. 2007) (rules on raising suppression issues in trial court)
- People v. Hoffman, 88 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2001) (requirement to raise suppression arguments in trial court)
- People v. McDonald, 137 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. App. 2006) (review standard for section 995 appeals preserving magistrate findings)
- Whitman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 1063 (Cal. 1991) (Proposition 115 admissibility of hearsay at prelim hearings)
- People v. Lilienthal, 22 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1978) (chain of review for suppression issues from prelim to trial)
- People v. Tully, 54 Cal.4th 952 (Cal. 2012) (limits on appellate review of trial court decisions)