People v. Smart CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/4/24 P. v. Smart CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, C100248
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE021151)
v.
MICHAEL JAMAAL SMART,
Defendant and Appellant.
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Michael
Jamaal Smart pled no contest to possessing a firearm having been convicted of a felony.
Following sentencing, defendant appealed from the denial of his suppression motion.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there
are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Finding none, we affirm.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
“ ‘In reviewing a suppression ruling, “we defer to the superior court’s express and
implied factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence” ’ ” and “ ‘view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the order denying the motion to suppress,’ ”
meaning “ ‘[a]ny conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the superior court
ruling.’ ” (People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 979.) We recite the relevant facts in
light of this deferential standard.
On the day after Christmas, the Sacramento Police Department stationed police
officers at the mall to deal with violence between juveniles that frequently occurred that
day. Mall patrons reported to some of these police officers that multiple people were
yelling at each other in a department store. By the time the officers arrived at the
reported location on the second floor, the disturbance was over and the perpetrators had
left.
Then, the department store’s security reported that two people had an altercation
or argument and one of them was armed with a handgun. The department store’s security
personnel described the armed suspect as an adult male wearing a green jacket with a gun
in the right pocket and carrying a black backpack. They described the other suspect as an
adult male wearing a blue jacket. The department store’s security personnel also reported
that they had found security footage of the disturbance and fast-forwarded it to determine
the suspects had gone down the escalator to the Polo section in the department store.
Officers went downstairs and found defendant wearing a green jacket and carrying a
black bag with another man wearing a blue jacket.
An officer asked defendant if he had been involved in the disturbance upstairs, and
defendant denied being involved. The officer advised defendant he was going to perform
a patdown search for weapons, and defendant responded that he did not consent to a
search and repeatedly informed the officer that he was not on probation or parole. The
officer grabbed defendant’s wrist, and defendant asked the officer not to search him.
2
Defendant tensed up so that the officer could not perform the patdown, so the officer
asked defendant not to resist. Other officers came over to assist in getting defendant’s
hands behind his back. When they could not get defendant’s hands behind his back, they
took him to the ground.
When defendant was on the ground, one officer saw him reaching for his front
right pocket. The officer had been warned that the suspect had a firearm in his front right
pocket, so he ran over and grabbed the pocket. The officer felt a handgun in the pocket,
so he unzipped the pocket and pulled out a handgun.
The prosecution argued the police officers properly detained defendant because he
and his companion matched the description of the two individuals involved in multiple
confrontations in a busy mall on a day when violence commonly recurred and defendant
specifically matched the description of someone reportedly carrying a gun. The
prosecution also argued the officers properly performed a patdown search to ensure their
safety, given the report of the gun in defendant’s pocket. Defendant argued the
prosecution could not establish reasonable suspicion for the detention and patdown
search without providing testimony from the witness who told the police defendant was
armed with a handgun.
The magistrate found that the police officers had appropriately tracked down
defendant to investigate the reports of a man with a gun involved in disputes in a busy
mall. The magistrate likewise found the officers had properly searched defendant to
ensure that he did not have a gun. Accordingly, the magistrate denied the motion to
suppress the evidence. The magistrate also denied defendant’s request to strike the
allegation that he had previously been convicted of a serious felony. Defendant renewed
his suppression motion in the trial court, but the court denied the motion.
Defendant then pled no contest to possessing a firearm having been convicted of a
felony. Defendant also admitted having a prior serious felony conviction. Pursuant to
the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the lower term of 16
3
months in prison, doubled to 32 months due to the prior serious felony conviction. The
court credited defendant with 688 days served in custody.
Defendant appeals from the judgment indicating that he based his appeal on the
denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant
was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the
date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not
filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
5