229 Cal. App. 4th 175
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Lujano pleaded guilty to counts 3–5 (meth possession, receiving stolen property, felon with firearm) and was sentenced to 14 years 4 months for counts 1 and the firearm enhancement.
- December 19, 2010 liquor-store robbery was captured on surveillance; suspects wore hoodies, gloves, masks; one brandished a firearm.
- December 28, 2010 officers observed a man in the driveway stripping copper wire from an air conditioner; the man identified as Vargas and associated with defendant as a visitor named Rick.
- Officers detained Vargas’s visitor; Vargas denied living there; a partially ajar door led officers to contact occupants, including defendant, inside the home.
- Defendant consented to a search after being detained; police later searched the residence with Vargas’s mother’s consent; several items linked to the robbery were recovered, including gloves, sweatshirts, pepper spray, and shoes found in defendant’s bedroom.
- The trial court denied a motion to suppress the evidence; on appeal, the People concede and court vacates count 1 and its firearm enhancement and stays count 5 under §654; suppression reversal and related vacatur are affirmed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression motion should have been granted | People argue detention was valid; taint from initial contact may be attenuated. | Lujano asserts unlawful in-home detention without probable cause; suppression required. | Suppression granted; unlawful in-home detention invalidates searches. |
| Whether the robbery conviction (count 1) and its firearm enhancement should be reversed | Evidence from the residence supported the robbery conviction. | Suppressed evidence requires reversal of related counts. | Count 1 and its firearm enhancement vacated due to suppression error. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying severance of the robbery from other charges | No prejudice to severance; joinder appropriate. | Joinder prejudicial; severance warranted. | Issue not resolved here; court vacates and limits scope as per plea waiver; focus remains on suppression ruling. |
| Whether evidence of third-party culpability could be admitted | Proposed to present third-party culpability evidence. | Evidence should be admissible to show innocence of defendant. | Ruling on this issue not essential to the judgment; addressed in limiting contexts; not dispositive here. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Willis, 28 Cal.4th 22 (Cal. 2002) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard; suppression standards)
- People v. Celis, 33 Cal.4th 667 (Cal. 2004) (probable cause and reasonable suspicion standards; particularized facts)
- U.S. v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010) (in-home detentions and exigent circumstances; delineation of warrantless entry)
- People v. Mashburn, 222 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2013) (waiver of appeal requires certificate of probable cause for suppression challenges)
- People v. Jones, 54 Cal.4th 350 (Cal. 2012) (section 654 prevents multiple punishment for a single act under different provisions)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (brief detentions must be objectively reasonable; exigent circumstances limits)
- Mashburn v. People, 222 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. App. 2013) (stated again in citation; see Mashburn discussion on certificate of probable cause)
- U.S. v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1980) (location of arrest determines home vs. public space for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- U.S. v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1976) (probable cause and exigent circumstances for warrantless arrest)