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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JA I ME M.T., Defendant and Appellant. A159364
(Napa County Super. Ct. No. 201635317

- 05)

After a contested hearing on jurisdiction, t he juvenile court found
J aime M.T. ( M inor) committed two misdemeanors (one reduced to an infraction) , decla red M inor a ward of the court , and placed him on probation.
Minor filed a notice of appeal stat ing that he is appeal ing from the juvenile court’s orders regarding (1) his motion to suppress evidence, (2) the People’s m otion to reconsider the court’s amended decision on the suppression

mot ion, (3) hi s 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
br i efing, and we affirm.2

Inci d ents 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 pant s pocket, and asked what it w as. Minor indicated it was marijuana , and
Keener pulled marijuana out of Minor’s pocket. Keener had Minor sit on the

cur b and then a sked 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 Octob er 26, 2018, around 9 :2 5 p.m. , Officer Andrew Oros stopped
Minor for not wearing a helmet and not having proper lighting equipment. During th is bicycle stop, Oros saw what looked like a bottle in Minor’s backpack. He asked about it, an d Minor said it was a bottle of tequila. The officer searched Minor’s backpack and retrieved a large bottle of t equila
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 Code 1 section 602 alleging Minor resisted, obstructed, or delayed Napa Police Officer Thomas Keener who was then attempting to discharg e 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. & Pr of. Code,

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and I nstitutions Code.3

§ 25 662, 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

“ p rior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the illeg al deten ti on, arrest and/or search , ” and (3) all observations by law enforcement “during the illegal detention, arrest and/or search.” It was argued tha t 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 Daless i and Detective Keener when they saw Minor riding his bicycle with no helmet. Skillings recognized Minor from a previous contact , during which no report

w as taken but Minor had a knife on his person. In the current bicycle stop, S killings said to Minor, “I know y o u had a knife before.” Keener testified he had at least three contacts with Minor before th e August bicycle stop . In one of those contact s (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 metha mphet amine 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 cooperatio n 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. Keene r reached in the pocket and retrieved the item . Keener testified it contained

appr oximately .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 t he 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 h is 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

O n August 12, 2019 , the juvenile court denied the suppression motion in full

. 2 A readiness c onference and contested hearing on jurisdiction were scheduled for the next month. Contested Jurisdictional Hearing
At two subsequent readiness conference s , the court granted the prosecut ion’s request s for continuance s 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,
estimate d 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 mornin g by email asking for the motion to be heard concurrently with the contest ed 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 th at, 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 mo tion 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 officer s 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 w as 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, M inor’s counsel raised an oral motion in limine seeking to prevent Officer Keener from testifying about a prior contact with M inor during which the officer believed Minor possessed drugs for sale. S he stated
that the record regarding the prior incident had been sealed by the court.
M inor’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 w ere 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

s uspicion , 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 circums tances. 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, p otentially I need to discuss this7

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 her e multiple times

. ” The court

o bserved 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” includin g “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 associate s with gang members, he denies being a gang member. The court found the information in the probation report about gang drawin gs and tattoos and Minor’s association with gang
members was sufficient to warrant the gang terms. Minor was also ordered8

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 ent irety 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.