San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

People v. Flores (Cal., May 2, 2024, No. S267522) 2024 WL 1919992, at *12

Background to detention

In May 2019, Officer Guy and his partner, Michael Marino, were on patrol in the area of Mariposa Avenue, a “known narcotic[s] area[ ]” and “gang hangout.” The officers drove by a cul-de-sac, and saw Flores standing alone in the street beside a Nissan parked at a red curb. Flores looked at the officers, walked around the back of the car, then “ducked” behind it. The officers pulled up and parked behind the Nissan. Flores bent over and faced away from the officers with both hands near his right shoe.  Marino trains his flashlight on Flores and he does not look around. He remains bent over and continues moving his hands near his feet. An officer  tells Flores to stand up. Flores remains bent over. Marino again directs Flores to stand. An officer tells Flores, “Your hands behind your head.” Flores complies and is directly placed in handcuffs.

People v. Koontzy (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 25, 2024, No. A167703) 2024 WL 1794196, at *1

Summary: Koontzy (appellant) pled no contest to fleeing the scene of an injury accident (Veh. Code § 20001, subd. (a)) and was placed on probation with the condition that she pay victim restitution. Due to the victim’s delay in providing documentation of her damages and the victim’s failure to appear on multiple dates set for restitution hearings, the trial court did not determine the amount of restitution before termination of appellant’s probation. More than two years post-termination, the court entered ordered appellant to pay $86,306.12 in victim restitution.

Appellant contends the trial court was without authority to modify the amount of restitution owed to the victim following termination of probation. Appellant relies on People v. Martinez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1093, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 140, 394 P.3d 1066 (Martinez) to argue that the court’s jurisdiction to do so was not extended by Penal Code section 1202.46 because the restitution was not for losses incurred “as a result of the commission of a crime.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) The Court of Appeal agreed and distinguished this case from its decision in People v. McCune (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 648, 651–652, review granted Oct. 26, 2022, S276303 (McCune), in which there was no dispute that the restitution was properly imposed under section 1202.4.

People v Felix, 2024 WL 979674 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.)

Summary: Felix was arrested in Utah after being stopped for a traffic violation. He consented to a search of his car which resulted in the recovery of a handgun, ammunition and over five kilograms of methamphetamine. While in custody in Utah on drug charges, Felix became a suspect in two murders that occurred in Southern California. After his return to, California, Felix invoked his right to counsel while being interviewed by the detectives investigating one of the murders. Felix was placed in a cell with an undercover detective to whom he made incriminating statements about both murders. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered during the Utah traffic stop and admitted, over his objection, his incriminating statements made to the undercover agent. Felix was found  guilty of two counts of first degree murder.

On appeal, Felix contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the warrantless search of his car and in admitting his statements to the undercover agent because he had previously invoked his right to counsel while being interviewed by detectives. The Court of Appeal  affirmed the judgment of conviction.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 15, 2024, No. B328954) 2024 WL 1131026, at *1

Summary: Two Los Angeles police officers in a cruiser saw Jackson, an African American man,  alone in a parked car. They pulled alongside, boxing Jackson in so that he would have to squeeze to get out. One officer went to Jackson’s side of the car, while the other walked to Jackson’s passenger side. Both shined flashlights on Jackson. Surrounding Jackson, the officers’ actions meant a reasonable person in his position would not feel free to leave.

The officers explained that Jackson was wearing a “big bulky jacket” on a “hot” and “humid” night. He “was seated kind of awkwardly in the driver’s seat.” And when they approached in the dark and shined flashlights on him, he looked “uncomfortable and kind of nervous,” “like he was surprised to see us.”