People v. Avina CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV1501597
- Trial judge
- Joseph B. Widman
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Laurence D. Rubin, William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court denied Avina's motion to suppress a handgun, rifle, and magazine found in his vehicle, ruling the search was valid under the automobile exception and inevitable discovery doctrine. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues supporting reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to suppress handgun, rifle, and magazine“The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, finding that the search was reasonable under the automobile exception and the inevitable discovery doctrine.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the trial court's suppression ruling on the merits; it simply stated it found no reasonably arguable issues after reviewing the record under Wende/Anders. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief and independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a no-merit appeal. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the suppression issues identified by counsel, relying solely on the court's independent review without explaining why the trial court's application of the automobile exception or inevitable discovery was correct.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Avina's motion to suppress a handgun, a .223-caliber rifle, and a magazine found in his Lexus, finding the warrantless search justified under the automobile exception and the inevitable discovery doctrine; Avina then pleaded no contest to attempted murder with gang and firearm enhancements and received an agreed 24-year concurrent sentence. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Avina filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to suppress the trunk evidence under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement“The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, finding that the search was reasonable under the automobile exception and the inevitable discovery doctrine.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review; it conducts Wende/Anders independent review of the record. The facts recited support the ruling: the Lexus matched a detailed description (model, color, sunroof, bumper damage, missing chrome trim) of the vehicle used in two homicides where .223 casings were found, and Avina was the registered owner who fled from officers. That supplies probable cause to believe the car contained evidence, and the automobile exception extends to the trunk and containers inside it. The court's conclusion that this issue is not reasonably arguable is defensible on this record, though the opinion offers no analysis. |
Denial of motion to suppress under the inventory search and inevitable discovery exceptions“Because the Lexus matched the description of the vehicle used in the homicides, officers already planned to seize and tow the vehicle for evidence.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion records that officers had already decided to seize and tow the vehicle as evidence before the trunk was opened, which supports the trial court's inevitable discovery finding as an alternative ground. Because the automobile exception independently justifies the search, any question about the inventory rationale would not change the result. The appellate court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is consistent with these facts, although the opinion does not explain its reasoning. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, but must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination.
The appellate opinion: sound — This is a standard Wende/Anders opinion: counsel identified two potential suppression issues, the defendant filed no supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue, which the recited facts (a vehicle closely matching the homicide suspect car, a planned evidentiary seizure and tow) comfortably support. The opinion offers no analysis of the suppression issues, but Wende procedure does not require discussion when the defendant raises no contentions personally, so the brevity is not a defect.
Opinion
Filed 6/18/26 P. v. Avina CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D085383
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FWV1501597)
v.
DAVID ERNESTO AVINA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Joseph B. Widman, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven Samuel Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. David Ernesto Avina pleaded no contest to attempted murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 664/187, subd. (a); count 3), admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and admitted a gang principal personally used and discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b), (c)(e)). As agreed, he was sentenced to 24 years, to run concurrently with a 50-year-to-life sentence he was already serving for another murder.2 Appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered Avina the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so. Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders and Wende, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Two shootings occurred on April 19, 2015, and one on April 26, 2015. The second and third shootings resulted in the deaths of the victims. Spent .223-caliber cartridges were found at all three crime scenes. Witnesses, surveillance video, and crime scene evidence led investigators to conclude that the shooters drove a 2007 or 2008 black Lexus IS250 four-door sedan, with a sunroof, bumper damage, and missing a piece of its chrome window trim. On April 30, 2015, officers responded to a vehicle matching the description of the Lexus. Avina, the driver and registered owner of the Lexus, led officers on a high-speed chase before pulling into a gas station and 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Avina was convicted after jury trial of the April 26, 2015 murder of Guy Estrada, in Case No. FWV17000793. 2 surrendering. Because the Lexus matched the description of the vehicle used in the homicides, officers already planned to seize and tow the vehicle for evidence. Officers removed Avina and a front passenger from the Lexus. Through the open car door, an officer observed a handgun on the passenger side floorboard. Another officer opened the trunk to ensure nobody was inside the trunk. Officers saw a rifle case inside the trunk. They opened the case and found a .223-caliber assault rifle inside and a magazine with .223- caliber bullets. Avina moved to suppress the handgun, the .223-caliber rifle and the .223-caliber magazine. The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, finding that the search was reasonable under the automobile exception and the inevitable discovery doctrine. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief asking the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, counsel identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1) Whether the trial court erred in finding the automobile exception to the warrant requirement permitted the officers’ search of the trunk. 2) Whether the trial court erred in finding the inventory search and inevitable discovery exceptions to the warrant requirement permitted the officers’ search of the trunk. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and have considered the possible issues identified by Avina’s counsel. We found no reasonably arguable issues supporting a reversal. Competent counsel has represented Avina in this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12