From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mann

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Jan 19, 2012
A131545 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012)

Opinion

A131545

01-19-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODNEY DAVID MANN, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC167101A)

Defendant Rodney Mann appeals from a judgment entered following his no contest plea to one count of possession of ecstasy. On appeal, he asserts the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

On October 23, 2009, a search warrant was executed at defendant's residence. The warrant was based on an affidavit containing the following facts:

On October 23, 2009, at approximately 1:15 a.m., Ryan Royten was stopped for speeding by police in Marin County. When asked where he was travelling, Royten stated he was going to a friend's house in San Geronimo. Royten consented to a search of himself and his car. The searching officer found suspected marijuana in Royten's pocket and in the car. Royten explained that he had a medicinal marijuana card in his wallet. The officer also recovered $20,640 in a plastic bag located under the driver's seat and a piece of cardboard with handwritten directions to an address of 1 Sunshine Way in San Geronimo. Royten initially claimed he had the money with him in case he saw a car or motorcycle he wanted to purchase. He denied that he was going to buy marijuana with the money. Later, however, he admitted that he was planning to use the money to purchase approximately five pounds of marijuana from a friend named Marcus at his residence located at 1 Sunshine Way, San Geronimo, California. Royten admitted that he intended to sell the marijuana to his friends. When asked whether there was a marijuana grow at Marcus's house, he stated, "I've never seen Marcus's grow."

The officer examined Royten's cell phone and found incoming and outgoing text messages from several individuals which the officer believed, based on his training and experience, were indicative of narcotics sales. Some of the messages were to a contact named Marcus. There were also recent text messages from a contact by the name of J Rod.

The police ran the Sunshine Lane address through the Marin County Records Management System and learned that in 1994 someone, not defendant, had been arrested for cultivating marijuana at that location. Officers followed the directions on the cardboard and located a house at the end of Sunshine Lane.

The officer opined that based upon the above information and his training and experience, he believed that sales of marijuana were occurring at the Sunshine Lane residence and that marijuana and its paraphernalia would be located on the premises.

When defendant's house at that location was searched pursuant to a warrant, officers located a substantial indoor marijuana grow operation, indicia of drug sales, as well as other contraband. Based on the evidence seized, defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), cultivation of marijuana (§ 11358), possession of concentrated cannabis (§ 11375, subd. (a)), possession of an analog of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11401, subd. (a)), possession of ecstasy (§ 11377, subd. (a)), and unlawful possession of steroids (§ 11377, subd. (b)).

All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.

At the preliminary hearing, defendant's motion challenging the validity of the search warrant was denied. Defendant's renewed motion to quash under Penal Code section 1538.5 was also denied. The court found that Royten's statements established probable cause to support the warrant and that his statements were sufficiently corroborated by the written directions and cash found in his vehicle as well as by the fact that his statements were against his penal interest.

After advisement and waiver, defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of ecstasy and the remaining counts were dismissed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Discussion

Defendant contends that the affidavit in support of the search warrant lacks any facts establishing probable cause, that the issuing magistrate had no substantial basis to issue the warrant, and that the superior court committed reversible error by denying the motion to quash the warrant. We disagree.

"In reviewing the issuance of a search warrant '[a]ll we are ... asked to decide is whether the [magistrate] acted properly .... [Citations.] Our determination is not based upon a de novo review. [Citations.] [¶] Our task, as a reviewing court, is to determine whether 'the magistrate had a "substantial basis for ... conclud[ing]" that a search warrant would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.' [Citation.] ' "[A]ll conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent, and all legitimate and reasonable inferences indulged to uphold the findings of the [magistrate] if possible." ' [Citation.] Moreover, doubtful or marginal cases should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant." (People v. Tuadles (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1777, 1783-1784.)

" 'The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.' " (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1040-1041, quoting Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238.) " 'Veracity ... may be established through admissions against penal interest.' " (People v. Terrones (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 139, 147; see also United States v. Harris (1971) 403 U.S. 573, 583 ["People do not lightly admit a crime and place critical evidence in the hands of police.... Admissions of crime ... carry their own indicia of credibility—sufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause to search."].) Likewise, " 'an informant's reliability may be demonstrated through independent police corroboration of the information provided.' " (Ibid.)

In this case, Royten's statement that he was going to the Sunshine Lane address to buy marijuana was corroborated by the physical evidence found in his car, including a large sum of cash and directions to the address, information obtained from Royten's cell phone, and the prior history of cultivating marijuana at that address. Contrary to defendant's argument, this evidence does "indicate that criminal activity is happening at the residence." While Royten may not have personally observed marijuana at the residence, the fact that he was traveling in the middle of the night from southern California to a particular residence in Marin County with $20,000 in cash for the purpose of purchasing marijuana supports a strong likelihood that officers would find marijuana on the premises. In this instance, Royten's lack of personal knowledge is outweighed by the veracity and reliability of his statement to the police. (See Higgason v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 929, 937 [Veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge " 'are weighed together with any other evidence that supports the finding of probable cause. They are viewed cumulatively, not as independent links in a chain.' "].) Moreover, as the trial judge observed, Royten's admission that he was purchasing the marijuana to sell to his friends was sufficiently against interest to further enhance the veracity of his statement. Contrary to defendant's argument, it is not necessary for purposes of corroboration that Royten's admissions establish conclusively that he committed a crime. (See People v. Cohn (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 738, 747 [reliability of informant enhanced because by delivering marijuana to police she "subjected" herself "to possible arrest"].) At the time Royten made this admission, he had been advised that while he was not under arrest he was being detained and he had been read his Miranda rights. Under the circumstances, it is unlikely that a person would admit that he intended to buy and sell marijuana if it were not true. Accordingly, the magistrate had probable cause to suspect that marijuana would be found at the Sunshine Lane address and the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to quash.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436
--------

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

___________

Pollak, J.
We concur:

___________
McGuiness, P. J.

___________
Jenkins, J.


Summaries of

People v. Mann

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Jan 19, 2012
A131545 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Mann

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODNEY DAVID MANN, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Date published: Jan 19, 2012

Citations

A131545 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012)