Source: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20CACO%2020111018017.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 19:29:40
Document Index: 218736593

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 459', '§ 10851', '§ 496', '§ 496', '§ 487', '§ 484', '§ 1170', '§ 4502', '§ 459', '§ 594']

PEOPLE v. JACKSON - Filed October 18, 2011.
• PEOPLE v. JACKSON... View Case
| Follow Leagle on Twitter | PEOPLE v. JACKSON
AREN MARCUS JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.
No. B226383.
Filed October 18, 2011.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTSGRIMES, J.Defendant and appellant Aren Marcus Jackson appeals from the judgment of conviction entered following his no contest plea to multiple felony charges, asserting as error the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.1 We affirm, concluding the search of defendant's residence met constitutional standards in light of defendant's parole status and was not otherwise arbitrary, capricious or harassing.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDIn September 2007, defendant was on active parole, residing with his wife, Tia Torres, on a multiple-acre, rural property located on Anthony Road in Agua Dulce, California. His parole agent was Larry Dorsey. On the morning of September 6, Agent Dorsey accompanied several Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs to conduct a parole search of defendant's residence.Based on evidence recovered during the search, an information was filed against defendant, charging him with 11 felonies: one count of second degree burglary of a vehicle (§ 459); one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); one count of receiving stolen property, vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)); three counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)); one count of grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)); and four counts of theft, access cards/account information (§ 484e, subd. (d)). It was also specially alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies (attempted murder of two peace officers) within the meaning of California's "Three Strikes" law (§§ 1170.12, subd. (a), 667, subd. (b)), as well as five prior convictions within the meaning of section 667.5.2 Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence collected during the September 6, 2007 search. We summarize the pertinent facts based on the testimony received during the hearing on the motion, which took place over a period of days and included testimony from multiple witnesses. <<Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next>> Footnotes
1. All further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.Back to Reference
2. The 11 felonies were charged in the main case (No. MA040064). Additional charges were later filed against defendant in case No. MA048449 for custodial possession of a weapon (§ 4502); and, in case No. MA048450 for commercial burglary (§ 459) and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)). We note for the record that defendant's notice of appeal only references case Nos. MA040064 and MA048450.Back to Reference
3. For privacy reasons, we use the designations "southern residence" and "northern residence" set forth in the record to distinguish the two homes and properties involved in the search, instead of identifying the numbered street addresses.Back to Reference
4. During a later interrogation, Chock made certain incriminating statements against defendant. Some of the charges relating to the stolen motorcycle against both defendant and Chock were dismissed following the court's partial granting of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence collected from the northern residence.Back to Reference
IN RE MARRIAGE OF LANCASHIRE
ZURITA v. CANBY NURSERY
THE CITY OF EAST LIVERPOOL v. BUCKEYE WATER DIST.
IN RE GRIFFITH
PINO v. LOCASCIO
STEELE v. BOTTICELLO
PARRISH v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BD.