People v. Rodriguez

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IRVIN STANLEY RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

F077237

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

September 12, 2019

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. PCF324186)

OPINION

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Michael B. Sheltzer, Judge.

Alexandr Satanovsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Tracy Yao, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo- Defendant Irvin Stanley Rodriguez was subjected to a warrantless search of his residence and property after officers were dispatched based on reports of shots fired and people arguing and screaming. The magistrate denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during the search, concluding the search was justified as a welfare check for victims. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of firearm and ammunition charges. On appeal, he contends the magistrate erred in denying his suppression motion. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On September 18, 2015, the Tulare County District Attorney charged defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1);¹ count 1), being a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and being under the influence while in possession of a loaded, operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (e); count 3). The complaint further alleged defendant had suffered one prior conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).²

On March 21, 2016, at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate denied defendant's motion to suppress and bound him over on counts 1 and 2 only.

On December 5, 2016, defendant renewed his motion to suppress before the trial court and it was denied again.

On December 19, 2017, a jury found defendant guilty on both counts 1 and 2, and the trial court found the special allegations true.

On March 6, 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison as follows: 32 months on count 1 (16 months doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law),and a consecutive term of 16 months on count 2. The court originally stayed the prior prison term enhancements, then apparently ordered them stricken.³

FACTS⁴

Deputy Sheriff Osvaldo Gomez testified that on September 16, 2015, he was dispatched to two specific cross streets in Tulare County based on several calls reporting shots fired and people arguing and screaming. The area consisted of houses spread out amid open fields. Gomez was flagged down by a "harried" female who pointed to the house where she heard the shots. She refused to give her name. She told him, " 'Go that way.' "

Gomez and his supervisor, Sergeant Mandel, (together, the officers) went to the house the female pointed out. Because the officers were dispatched due to reports of shots fired and people screaming, they intended to check for possible victims, to see if anyone was hurt and needed their assistance. When they looked over the six-foot-tall wooden fence that surrounded the front yard, they did not see or hear anyone. The officers went through a hole in the fence. They had their handguns and flashlights out because they were unsure if they would find a suspect or a victim. The front door was ajar and the lights were on inside. As they approached, they saw broken class and brokenpieces of wood near the front door. They announced themselves and knocked on the door. They waited and shined their lights through the windows. Nobody came out. The officers went inside. The house looked like it had been ransacked. There were black trash bags of clothing on the couch and on the floor. Trash was everywhere, and there was a bed in the living room that "just looked out of place." The officers cleared the house and found no one. One of the bedrooms had a net on the wall containing marijuana stem leaves.

When the officers reached the backyard, they continued looking for victims who might be injured and in need of help. As they did, they called out and announced themselves, saying they were Tulare County Sheriff's deputies, and if anyone was on the property, they should make themselves known. The officers observed a few sheds on the property. Near one shed, Gomez saw five spent shotgun shell casings on the ground. The officers continued clearing the property to make sure there were no victims. Inside a shed, they found live shotgun shells. They continued further into the property, entering through an opened chain link gate into a 40-by-60-foot area enclosed by a chain link fence and pieces of wood. Inside they observed about 90 five- to six-foot-tall marijuana plants. The officers continued to announce themselves as they walked. They searched the entire property, which was approximately five acres of mostly open, undeveloped land. They searched the marijuana field last because they knew how dangerous those fields could be. As they proceeded through the marijuana plants, defendant appeared from the corner of the field, quite close to the house. He had been kneeling to hide behind the plants. He stood up and raised his hands. The officers called him over and he approached. He had scratches on his face. The officers detained him because they did not know who he was. They asked him if he was okay and if he needed an ambulance. He said no, he was fine. When the officers searched the area where defendant had been hiding, they found a loaded shotgun. It had one shell in the chamber and four in the magazine. The officers found no one else on the property.

Gomez spoke to defendant after reading him his Miranda⁵ rights. Defendant said the shotgun belonged to him, and he shot it into the air to scare the dogs from chasing the chickens. Gomez did not observe any chickens on the property.

After hearing this testimony, the magistrate stated:

"As to the motion to suppress, I didn't hearing any argument—quite frankly, what [Gomez] testified to me was he was there on [reports of] shots fired and screaming and that essentially to me it sounded like the entirety of their search was a welfare check looking for either victims or suspects, mostly victims from what I heard, and I think that was perfectly reasonable based on what he knew and based on what the individual that directed him toward the house told him that she had heard the shots fired at that home.

"He entered through the gap of the fence and found the front door ajar and based on the fact that the house was ransacked and they were looking for victims, I think all the steps were appropriate and reasonable and I will deny the motion to suppress based on those grounds."

DISCUSSION

I. Law

"Where, as here, a motion to suppress evidence is submitted to the superior court on the preliminary hearing transcript (see § 1538.5, subd. (i)), ' "the appellate court disregards the findings of the superior court and reviews the determination of the magistrate who ruled on the motion to suppress, drawing all presumptions in favor of the factual determinations of the magistrate, upholding the magistrate's express or implied findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, and measuring the facts as found by the trier against the constitutional standard of reasonableness." ' " (People v. Cruz (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 764, 769; see People v. Hua (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1033 [we review the propriety of the magistrate's decision, not that of the superior court that affirmed the magistrate's decision].) "We ... decide for ourselves what legal principlesare relevant, independently apply them to the historical facts, and determine as a matter of law whether there has been an unreasonable search [or] seizure." (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922.) "We may sustain the [magistrate's] decision without embracing its reasoning." (People v. McDonald (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 521, 529.) Thus, we may affirm the ruling if it is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, even if the ruling was in fact based on an incorrect reason. (Ibid.)

"Under California law, issues relating to the suppression of evidence derived from police searches and seizures must be reviewed under federal constitutional standards." (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 794.) "The Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement and other government officials." (People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 345, fn. omitted.) "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." (Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 586; People v. Thompson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 811, 817.) That presumption, however, can be overcome—"the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness,' [and thus] the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions." (Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart (2006) 547 U.S. 398, 403 (Brigham); Michigan v. Fisher (2009) 558 U.S. 45, 47 (Fisher).) When police conduct a search or seizure without a warrant, the prosecution has the burden of showing the officer's actions were justified by an exception to the warrant requirement. (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 120.)

One exception is a search conducted due to exigent or emergency circumstances. For example, the emergency aid exception is based on "the need to assist persons who are seriously...