21 Cal.App.5th 130
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 21, 2013 an apparent robbery occurred; witnesses heard a gunshot and two men fled. A silver sedan later dropped defendant Damari Mathews at Highland Hospital with gunshot injuries.
- San Leandro officers contacted Mathews in a hospital trauma room. Mathews initially gave the false name “Damari/Omari Johnson”; a record check on the false name did not reveal his probation search condition.
- After Mathews later gave his true name, officers learned he was on felony probation subject to a four‑way search condition; officers seized a cell phone, clothing, watch and cash that hospital staff had placed in a safe.
- Forensic analysis of the phone linked it to the robbery location and travel to Highland Hospital. Mathews was charged with robbery, firearm possession, and a PC 12022.53(b) personal‑use firearm enhancement.
- At trial the court denied Mathews’s section 1538.5 suppression motion and his Pitchess motion for officer personnel records. A jury convicted; the court sentenced Mathews to an aggregate 13 years.
- After this court’s prior decision, the California Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of S.B. 620 (which grants sentencing courts discretion to strike certain firearm enhancements retroactively). The Attorney General conceded remand was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seizure of phone/evidence at hospital violated Fourth Amendment | Prosecution: seizure lawful as probation search; estoppel bars challenge because defendant’s false name prevented discovery of search condition | Mathews: false name aside, officer ran no timely record check before seizing phone; evidence should be suppressed | Court: estoppel applies under People v. Watkins; substantial evidence the phone was seized after officer received record‑check results, so suppression denied for phone; any error re: officer observations of wounds/clothes was harmless |
| Whether Pitchess discovery should have been granted for officers’ personnel files | State: trial court properly found no good cause; officer report language was not materially deceptive | Mathews: reports mischaracterized source/timing of seizure and officer awareness of search condition; personnel records could impeach | Court: no abuse of discretion in summary denial—affidavit failed to show materiality or proposed defense tied to the records |
| Whether presentence custody and conduct credits were miscalculated | State: trial court correctly computed 648 custody days and 97 conduct days | Mathews: probation report misstates custody days; entitled to different totals (733/109) | Court: trial court correctly used actual custody periods; credits affirmed |
| Whether remand is required under S.B. 620 to consider striking firearm enhancement | State concedes S.B. 620 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments and joins remand | N/A (defendant sought remand) | Court: convictions affirmed but remanded for trial court to consider whether to strike/dismiss PC 12022.53 enhancement under amended law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watkins, 170 Cal.App.4th 1403 (estoppel where defendant’s false name causes record check to miss probation search condition)
- Myers v. Superior Court, 124 Cal.App.4th 1247 (officer’s failure to conduct record check can require suppression despite defendant’s misstatement)
- People v. Woods, 21 Cal.4th 668 (probationers may consent in advance to warrantless searches as a condition of probation)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (exclusionary rule and ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ principles)
- People v. Coffman and Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (doctrine of inevitable discovery explained)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional errors)