People v. Capps CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065527 · 2015-04-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS270287
Trial judge: Theodore M. Weathers
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:18Z · confidence high

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in her vehicle and accepted her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant forfeited the right to appeal the suppression ruling by failing to renew the motion after the preliminary hearing, and finding no ineffective assistance of counsel.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to suppress evidence (forfeiture on appeal) “Richardson makes clear that "a defendant who has pled guilty before a magistrate following the magistrate's denial of his or her suppression motion cannot raise the search and seizure issue again in the superior court."”	unclear	error	agree with court agree with court
Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to renew suppression motion “Defendant has provided no record from which we can conclude that there was no rational tactical purpose for counsel's act or omission.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Validity of search of passenger area/purse incident to arrest “Given the time of night, the lack of restraint of the driver, and defendant's felony arrest warrant, we conclude a search of the purse for weapons was reasonable.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574 — A defendant who pleads guilty before a magistrate after a suppression motion is denied cannot raise the search and seizure issue on appeal unless they renew the motion in superior court after being held to answer.
relied: People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891 — Establishes the general rule regarding the finality of magistrate rulings on suppression motions in the context of guilty pleas.
relied: Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 — Sets the standard for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring a showing of deficient performance and prejudice.
relied: People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188 — Courts must exercise deferential scrutiny when determining if counsel's performance was deficient.
relied: People v. Hart (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 479 — A conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance only if the record affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for their act or omission.
relied: People v. Hinds (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 897 — The availability of a plea offer may be dependent on not pursuing further motions, providing a rational tactical purpose for counsel's actions.
relied: People v. Brown (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 493 — A warrant check is permissible during a traffic stop if it can be completed within the same period necessary to discharge the duties incurred by the stop.
relied: Michigan v. Long (1983) 463 U.S. 1032 — Supports the reasonableness of searching a vehicle for weapons incident to an arrest when the arrestee is within reaching distance.
relied: Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 — Clarifies the scope of searches incident to arrest, particularly regarding the passenger area of a vehicle.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the forfeiture rule from People v. Richardson, which bars appellate review of suppression issues if the defendant pleads guilty before the magistrate without renewing the motion in superior court. The court also correctly applied the deferential standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, noting the lack of record evidence to show counsel lacked a rational tactical purpose.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The magistrate denied Anna Capps's Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress methamphetamine found in her purse during a traffic stop, after which she pled guilty before the magistrate to possession of methamphetamine and received three years' probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that under Lilienthal and Richardson she forfeited appellate review by pleading guilty without renewing the motion in superior court, that her ineffective-assistance claim failed for lack of a record showing no tactical purpose, and that in any event the detention and purse search were lawful so she suffered no prejudice.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the section 1538.5 suppression motion by the magistrate, with defendant pleading guilty before the magistrate without renewing the motion in superior court “Without renewal of the motion to suppress, we have no record from which we can review the issues raised.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m), as construed in Lilienthal and applied to guilty pleas before a magistrate in Richardson, requires that the suppression issue be presented to the superior court before it can be raised on appeal; the opinion correctly applies that settled rule and the facts here are indistinguishable from Richardson.
Merits of the suppression ruling (prolonged detention and search of the purse), assessed as the prejudice prong of the ineffective-assistance claim for failing to renew the motion “Given the time of night, the lack of restraint of the driver, and defendant's felony arrest warrant, we conclude a search of the purse for weapons was reasonable.”	unclear	correct	unsure The warrant-check analysis under Brown is sound because the extension of the stop was caused by a reported felony warrant, which itself supplies reasonable suspicion. The purse-search analysis is thinner: Gant's search-incident rule does not apply because defendant was handcuffed in the patrol car and a warrant arrest yields no offense-related evidence to look for, so the court properly falls back on Michigan v. Long, but Long requires specific articulable facts that a person is dangerous and may gain control of a weapon, and the opinion identifies only the hour, an unrestrained cooperative driver, and the passenger's warrant. The opinion does not address alternative grounds such as inevitable discovery at booking, and the record as described is too sparse to say definitively whether the result is right.

Authorities

relied: People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574 — A defendant who pleads guilty before a magistrate after the magistrate denies a suppression motion, without renewing the motion in superior court, cannot obtain appellate review of the search and seizure ruling.
relied: People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891 — Under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m), a search and seizure issue must be raised in the superior court to be preserved for appeal.
relied: People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188 — Counsel's performance under Strickland is reviewed deferentially and assessed under the circumstances as they existed when counsel acted or failed to act.
relied: People v. Hart (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 479 — An ineffective-assistance claim is rejected on direct appeal where the record is silent on counsel's reasons unless counsel was asked and failed to explain or there could be no satisfactory explanation.
relied: People v. Hinds (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 897 — A favorable plea bargain may rationally depend on counsel forgoing further motions, supplying a tactical purpose for not pursuing them.
relied: People v. Brown (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 493 — A warrant check during a traffic stop is permissible if it can be completed within the time reasonably necessary to carry out the duties of the stop.
relied: Michigan v. Long (1983) 463 U.S. 1032 — Officers may conduct a protective search of a vehicle's passenger compartment for weapons when they have reasonable suspicion that an individual is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.
relied: Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 — A vehicle search incident to arrest is permitted only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest; Long remains an independent basis for a protective weapons search.
relied: Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 — Ineffective assistance requires both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The forfeiture holding is squarely controlled by Lilienthal and Richardson and the ineffective-assistance analysis correctly applies the silent-record rule of Scott and Hart. The alternative merits analysis of the purse search, however, articulates only sparse facts to satisfy Long's requirement of reasonable suspicion that someone was dangerous, and it does not address other possible justifications such as inevitable discovery.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/24/15 P. v. Capps 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, D065527

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS270287)

ANNA K. CAPPS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.

Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Warren J.

Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. BACKGROUND At approximately 1:45 a.m. on February 7, 2014, Officer Sam Sellers stopped a car at an intersection in Coronado. Defendant and appellant Anna K. Capps was a passenger. Officer Sellers obtained identification, registration and insurance information from the driver. Defendant was unable to produce a driver's license. Officer Sellers asked for, and obtained, her full name and birth date.

Dispatch informed Officer Sellers that defendant could have a felony warrant for her arrest because she had several aliases. Defendant provided her aliases and social security number. Existence of a felony warrant was confirmed, and defendant was arrested. While defendant was in the back of the police car, Officer Sellers searched the passenger area of the car and found a purse on the floorboard. Inside the purse, he found a purple tin that contained a glass pipe and methamphetamine.

On February 11, 2014, the San Diego County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)).

Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.

After her preliminary examination and suppression motion hearing, defendant was bound over for further proceedings. On the same day, defendant pled guilty to the possession of methamphetamine charge (count 1), and the prosecution dismissed the paraphernalia charge (count 2). The court immediately sentenced defendant to three years' probation.

2 A timely notice of appeal was filed, but defendant failed to file a certificate of probable cause. Pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress because her detention was unduly prolonged and the search of the car was not a valid search incident to her arrest. The People respond that defendant may not assert these arguments because she did not renew the motion to suppress following being held to answer and the filing of an information. We agree with the People.

There is no distinction between this case and People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574, 584-585. Richardson makes clear that "a defendant who has pled guilty before a magistrate following the magistrate's denial of his or her suppression motion cannot raise the search and seizure issue again in the superior court. Thus—unless an exception to the Lilienthal [People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891] rule is recognized in cases involving a guilty plea under [Penal Code] section 859a—if a defendant who has lost a suppression motion before a magistrate wants to pursue appellate review of the search and seizure issue, he or she cannot plead guilty in front of the magistrate. Instead, he or she must proceed with the preliminary hearing (or waive his or her right to a preliminary hearing) and, after being held to answer, allow an information to be filed (or allow the complaint to be deemed an information). Then, he or she can either move to dismiss the information under [Penal Code] section 995 or renew his or her suppression motion before trial under subdivision (i) of [Penal Code] section 1538.5 and withhold his 3 or her guilty plea until after his or her motion is denied a second time by the superior court." (Id. at p. 593.) Without renewal of the motion to suppress, we have no record from which we can review the issues raised.

Defendant urges us to find her counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to file a renewed motion to suppress following the preliminary hearing, and before she pled guilty. "'In determining whether counsel's performance was deficient [under Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668], a court must in general exercise deferential scrutiny . . .' and must 'view and assess the reasonableness of counsel's acts or omissions . . . under the circumstances as they stood at the time that counsel acted or failed to act.'"

(People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1212.) On appeal, we will reverse a conviction only if the record affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his act or omission. If the record contains no explanation for the challenged behavior, we will reject the claim unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one or unless there can be no explanation. (People v. Hart (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 479, 486.)

Defendant's argument that counsel was incompetent fails on multiple grounds.

First, we note the prosecutor and defense counsel conferred after defendant was held to answer. Very soon thereafter, on the same day, defendant entered a plea of guilty and obtained a favorable sentence of probation for three years, dismissal of count 2 and credit for time served. As the People note, the availability of this plea offer, which was accepted, may have been dependent on not pursuing a further motion to suppress.

(People v. Hinds (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 897, 902.) Defendant has provided no record 4 from which we can conclude that there was no rational tactical purpose for counsel's act or omission.

In any event, we conclude any error in failing to renew the motion to suppress was harmless in that defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to renew the motion to suppress.

A warrant check is permissible during a traffic stop if it can be completed within the same period necessary to discharge the duties incurred by virtue of the traffic stop.

(People v. Brown (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 493, 498.) Here, Officer Sellers ran the names of defendant and the driver within minutes of stopping the car. The stop was then prolonged because police dispatch indicated there was a possible felony warrant for defendant's arrest. It was not unreasonable for Officer Sellers to then focus on confirming whether a felony warrant existed, which it did, and defendant was arrested.

With respect to the search of defendant's purse, we note that although defendant was handcuffed, the driver of the vehicle, who was not restrained, had access to it once he reentered the vehicle and, indeed, remained in and near the vehicle during defendant's arrest. Given the time of night, the lack of restraint of the driver, and defendant's felony arrest warrant, we conclude a search of the purse for weapons was reasonable. (Michigan v. Long (1983) 463 U.S. 1032, 1049; Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 346-347.)

5 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Richardson C049702 · 2007-10-29
People v. Hinds C040999 · 2003-05-16
People v. Hart C028605 · 1999-08-23
People v. Brown F028131 · 1998-03-23
People v. . Scott S010334 · 1997-07-14
People v. Lilienthal Crim. 20516 · 1978-12-19