1

Filed 8/31/20 P. v. M.T. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAIME M.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A159364

 (Napa County

 Super. Ct. No. 201635317-05)

After a contested hearing on jurisdiction, the juvenile court found 

Jaime M.T. (Minor) committed two misdemeanors (one reduced to an 

infraction), declared Minor a ward of the court, and placed him on probation.

Minor filed a notice of appeal stating that he is appealing from the 

juvenile court’s orders regarding (1) his motion to suppress evidence, (2) the 

People’s motion to reconsider the court’s amended decision on the suppression 

motion, (3) his motion to continue the jurisdictional hearing, (4) jurisdictional 

findings, and (5) disposition.

Minor’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court for 

an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436. Minor was informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he 

has not done so. After our review of counsel’s brief and our independent 

review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further 

briefing, and we affirm.
2

Incidents Leading to Petition

Minor’s case stems from two separate bicycle stops that occurred when 

he was 17 years old. 

On August 29, 2018, around 7:20 p.m., Minor was riding his bicycle 

when three city of Napa police officers stopped him for not wearing a helmet. 

Officer Thomas Keener pat searched Minor, felt something squishy in a pants

pocket, and asked what it was. Minor indicated it was marijuana, and 

Keener pulled marijuana out of Minor’s pocket. Keener had Minor sit on the 

curb and then asked him to stick his legs out and cross them. Minor did not 

comply, and Keener put him in handcuffs and took him to Juvenile Hall for 

booking. 

On October 26, 2018, around 9:25 p.m., Officer Andrew Oros stopped 

Minor for not wearing a helmet and not having proper lighting equipment. 

During this bicycle stop, Oros saw what looked like a bottle in Minor’s 

backpack. He asked about it, and Minor said it was a bottle of tequila. The 

officer searched Minor’s backpack and retrieved a large bottle of tequila 

about one-quarter full. 

Wardship Petition

On January 25, 2019, the Napa County District Attorney filed an initial 

two-count wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1

section 602 alleging Minor resisted, obstructed, or delayed Napa Police 

Officer Thomas Keener who was then attempting to discharge his duties 

(Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and, on a second occasion, possessed 

an alcoholic beverage on a street in a public space (Bus. & Prof. Code, 

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
3

§ 25662, subd. (a); count 2). Minor was not charged with a marijuana-related 

offense. 

Motion to Suppress

On March 22, 2019, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress with 

respect to the bicycle stop of August 29, 2018 (August bicycle stop), only. The 

motion sought suppression of (1) all physical evidence obtained “during the 

illegal detention, arrest and/or search,” (2) all statements made by Minor

“prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the illegal detention, arrest 

and/or search,” and (3) all observations by law enforcement “during the illegal 

detention, arrest and/or search.” It was argued that there was no reasonable 

suspicion to justify the detention, and Minor’s “arrest and information 

obtained in connection with the arrest concerning [Minor] must be 

suppressed.”

On May 7, 2019, the court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. 

Two of the three officers involved in the August bicycle stop testified. 

Officer Kevin Skillings testified he was on patrol with Sergeant Dalessi 

and Detective Keener when they saw Minor riding his bicycle with no helmet. 

Skillings recognized Minor from a previous contact, during which no report 

was taken but Minor had a knife on his person. In the current bicycle stop, 

Skillings said to Minor, “I know you had a knife before.” 

Keener testified he had at least three contacts with Minor before the 

August bicycle stop. In one of those contacts (which occurred within the 

previous six months of the instant contact), Minor had a knife. When 

Skillings asked Minor if he had any weapons (during the August bicycle 

stop), Minor would not answer. 

Keener testified that he and Dalessi (apparently in a different prior 

contact) once found Minor in possession of methamphetamine for sale; 
4

Keener testified that he knew from experience that persons involved in drug 

sales commonly possess weapons. In this prior contact, Minor was also found 

with gang-related writing in a notebook. 

Keener conducted a pat search of Minor for weapons. He testified he 

believed Minor might be armed because of his prior experiences with Minor 

and because Minor was wearing a tee shirt covering his waistband, which 

made it difficult to discern if he had a weapon, and “his initial lack of 

cooperation for such a minor violation.” 

During the pat search, Keener felt a squishy object in Minor’s left pants 

pocket. He asked what it was, and Minor said it was weed. Keener reached 

in the pocket and retrieved the item. Keener testified it contained

approximately .6 grams of marijuana. 

Keener had Minor sit on the curb while the officers wrote a citation. 

The citation was for riding without a helmet and possession of marijuana. 

Keener testified these were not arrestable offenses; they were infractions. 

Minor would not provide identifying information (such as address and date of 

birth) needed to fill out the citation. 

Several times while he was sitting on the curb, Minor used his hands to 

push himself up, appearing to try to stand up. Keener testified he became 

concerned Minor might try to flee or assault one of the officers, so he told 

Minor to stick his feet out and cross them. Minor did not comply and 

responded, “fuck you.” Keener told Minor again to stick out his feet and cross 

them, and again he responded with “fuck you” and did not comply. Keener 

went to grab Minor’s right wrist to place him in handcuffs and place him 

under arrested for “148 P.C., resisting, obstructing and delaying.” Minor 

pulled forcefully away from him. Keener then placed Minor on the ground 

and handcuffed him. 
5

On August 12, 2019, the juvenile court denied the suppression motion

in full.

2 A readiness conference and contested hearing on jurisdiction were 

scheduled for the next month. 

Contested Jurisdictional Hearing

At two subsequent readiness conferences, the court granted the 

prosecution’s requests for continuances due to the unavailability of an officer 

witness. 

At the readiness hearing on October 28, 2019, the court and counsel 

confirmed the contested hearing on jurisdiction scheduled for the next day, 

estimated to last one hour. 

On October 29, 2019, the jurisdictional hearing went forward. Minor’s 

counsel stated she was making an oral motion to suppress evidence found 

during the October 26, 2018, bicycle stop (October bicycle stop). She had

notified the court and the prosecutor that morning by email asking for the 

motion to be heard concurrently with the contested hearing or for a 

continuance. Minor’s counsel explained that she had just realized in 

2 Initially, after hearing the officers’ testimony and argument of 

counsel, the juvenile court denied the motion to suppress on May 7, 2019. On 

May 28, however, the court issued an amended decision on the suppression 

motion, granting the motion to suppress as to the marijuana but denying the 

motion as to observations that led to the charge of resisting an officer. In the 

amended order, the court found that, although the initial detention and pat 

down were lawful, “Keener’s discovery of marijuana in [Minor]’s pocket was 

the result of a search that exceeded that permitted by law and therefore the 

marijuana should be suppressed.” 

The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the amended 

order, and after further briefing and argument, the court ruled on August 12,

that it would not suppress the marijuana. Its ruling was based on the 

inevitable discovery doctrine, the court reasoning that the officers lawfully 

arrested Minor for the offense of resisting or delaying an officer, and they 

could have found the marijuana in a lawful search incident to arrest. 
6

preparing for the hearing that there was a second incident (the October 

bicycle stop) that was separate from the August bicycle stop, which had been 

extensively litigated. 

The prosecutor agreed to have the suppression motion on the October 

bicycle stop and the contest heard at the same time. 

In addition, Minor’s counsel raised an oral motion in limine seeking to 

prevent Officer Keener from testifying about a prior contact with Minor 

during which the officer believed Minor possessed drugs for sale. She stated 

that the record regarding the prior incident had been sealed by the court. 

Minor’s counsel also explained that she intended to reargue the issue 

whether the pat down during the August bicycle stop was lawful. 

The court ruled that if counsel stipulated that the initial stop and pat 

down during the August bicycle stop were legal, then the prior incident would 

not be relevant, and the court would exclude it. But if Minor’s counsel 

intended to reargue the validity of the stop and pat down, then evidence of 

the prior incident would be relevant to whether the officers had reasonable 

suspicion, and the court would allow evidence of the prior incident. 

Minor’s counsel then asked whether she could cross-examine the 

officers on the fact that a motion to suppress had been granted regarding the 

prior incident. The prosecutor objected because he knew nothing about the 

prior case, and there had been no discovery on the issue. The court agreed 

with the prosecutor that it would be inappropriate for Minor’s counsel to use 

facts from the sealed case under the circumstances. The court suggested

Minor might need to make a motion to unseal the prior case if he intended to 

use it to impeach the officer. 

Minor’s counsel then stated, “[G]iven that ruling I would be making a 

motion to continue, file a motion to unseal, potentially I need to discuss this 
7

with my client if he truly wants this unsealed so that I could provide the 

court and counsel with discovery.” The court denied the request for a 

continuance, noting the parties had “been here multiple times.” The court 

observed Minor could testify about the circumstances of the search in the 

prior case, but Minor’s counsel could not refer to a suppression motion in a 

sealed file. 

Officers Oros and Keener then testified. Following their testimony, 

Minor’s counsel asked the court to suppress the evidence obtained in the 

October bicycle stop arguing Oros’s conduct was an illegal search. The court 

denied the motion, finding that when Oros asked what was in Minor’s 

backpack, “he was conducting an investigation and had the ability to ask 

[Minor] questions.” 

Minor’s counsel also argued that part of Keener’s pat search and 

detention was unlawful and “that transforms the entire contact into an 

unlawful prolonged detention” including “subsequently where [Minor] 

conducts acts of resistance.” The court denied the renewed suppression 

motion. 

Minor moved to dismiss the petition under section 701.1, and the court 

denied the motion. The court then found the allegations of counts 1 and 2 

true. The court reduced count 2 to an infraction at Minor’s request. 

Disposition

On December 4, 2019, at the hearing on disposition, the court placed 

Minor on probation. Minor’s counsel objected to the gang terms of probation 

stating that, while Minor admits he associates with gang members, he denies 

being a gang member. The court found the information in the probation 

report about gang drawings and tattoos and Minor’s association with gang 

members was sufficient to warrant the gang terms. Minor was also ordered 
8

to pay a restitution fine of $50 and another fine of $50 pursuant to section 

730.5.

We have reviewed the record on appeal in its entirety and conclude that 

there are no meritorious issues to be argued. 

We see no error in the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings or 

disposition. No ruling by the juvenile court on evidentiary issues amounted 

to an abuse of discretion or legal error.

We have reviewed the record on appeal for any arguable issues. We 

conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. 

The judgment is affirmed.
9

_________________________

Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Kline, P.J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

A159364, People v. Jaime M.T.