People v. Rooks

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LESTER JACKSON ROOKS III…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: May 5, 2009

No. E045482 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 5, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LESTER JACKSON ROOKS III, Defendant and Appellant. E045482 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division May 5, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. FMB008195

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

MILLER, J.

The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed in this matter on April 10, 2009, is modified as follows:

1. On pages eight and nine of the opinion, in the sentence that starts on page eight and continues onto page nine, “Defendant essentially contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence because the first warrant application was not supported by sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search defendant’s bedroom or his property,” the word “property” is changed to “lockbox.”

2. On page nine of the opinion, in the second complete paragraph, after the sentence “In sum, the affidavit set forth a fair probability that evidence of the stabbing could be found in defendant’s bedroom,” a new paragraph is inserted as follows:

We now turn to the search of defendant’s lockbox. “During the execution of a search warrant for fixed premises, the police may lawfully search the personal [property] of a resident of the premises subject to search where the personal [property is a] plausible repositor[y] of [evidence].” (People v. McCabe (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 827, 830; accord, People v. Superior Court (Meyers) (1979) 25 Cal.3d 67, 78.) During the search of defendant’s bedroom, defendant’s Mother said she did not know if defendant’s brother had access to defendant’s lockbox. The lockbox was either 12 inches by 12 inches or 18 inches by 18 inches—large enough to contain a knife or Jimson Weed. In the instant case, defendant’s brother could have hidden evidence in the lockbox, because defendant’s brother might have had access to the box, and the box was large enough to conceal evidence. Consequently, the search of defendant’s lockbox was proper.

3. The last sentence in the “Discussion” section, on page 9, “Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss,” is moved to the end of the newly inserted paragraph.

Except for this modification, the opinion remains unchanged. The modification does not affect a change in the judgment.

We concur: RICHLI, Acting P. J., GAUT, J.