P. v. Singleton

Filed 9/19/07 P. v. Singleton CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Defendant Terence Michael Singleton appeals after pleading no contest to a charge of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a residential burglary.[1] On the morning of December 17, 2005, defendant and another man rang the doorbell of the victims home. The victim looked out of the peephole and saw an African-American man wearing a black beanie and a Steelers coat standing at the front door. The victim thought the man was a solicitor, and did not answer the door. Looking out a window, he saw the man talking to another man. The doorbell rang again. The victim looked out a window and saw the same man at his doorstep. He heard the sound of wood breaking at the front door, and ran upstairs to call the police. Police later found various items belonging to the victim, including a video game system, games, an IPod, and money, in a garbage can near his home.

Officer Mike Beatty of the Fairfield Police Department was dispatched to respond to the reported crime. He was told that two African-American males wearing black clothing, including sports clothing, had been seen running away from the area of the crime. Within two minutes of receiving the call, he took up a position at the end of a pathway leading from the residential area where the burglary had taken place, where he could intercept someone going the direction in which the two men had been running. He was approximately four or five blocks from the home that had been burglarized. About 90 seconds later, he saw defendant and another African-American man in semi dark clothing walking toward him from the direction of the victims home.[2] One of the men was wearing a sports shirt or jacket. Beatty approached the two men, and noticed that they were out of breath and had sweat stains on the front of their shirts. He told them that they were coming from an area where a crime had just occurred and that they matched the descriptions of the criminals, and asked them to sit down. One of them sat down. The other looked as if he was going to run, but sat down when another officer arrived.

According to the probation report, the victim identified defendant and his companion as the people he had seen at his front door. After being arrested, defendant admitted he had broken into the house and taken several items.

Defendant moved to suppress evidence, contending he was detained and searched illegally and that all fruits of the search, including his statements, should be suppressed. The trial court denied the motion, concluding Beatty had the right to stop defendant and his companion and investigate further because they generally matched the description of the criminals, they were coming from the direction of the burglary shortly after the crime, and they were sweating and out of breath. Defendant then pled no contest to the charge of burglary.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. The standard of appellate review of a trial courts ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial courts factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment. (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)

Defendant contends the facts of this case did not justify the detention. An investigative detention is proper if an officer reasonably suspects that the person detained has violated the law. (People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1082-1083.) [T]o be reasonable, an officers suspicion must be supported by some specific, articulable facts that are reasonably consistent with criminal activity.   (Id. at p. 1083.) To justify an investigative stop or detention, the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts which, viewed objectively, would cause a reasonable officer to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person the officer intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. (People v. Conway (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) Thus, in People v. Overten (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505, the court concluded that an officer had reasonable grounds to stop the defendant when he was driving away from a crime area shortly after a robbery, on one of two logical escape routes, he and his companions matched the general description of the robbers, and they tried to conceal themselves when they saw the officers marked police car.

The facts here easily justify the detention of defendant. Beatty saw defendant and another man matching the description of the criminals coming from the area of the burglary, in the direction the criminals had been seen running, within a few minutes of receiving the dispatch call. Defendant and his companion were sweating and out of breath. In the circumstances, Beatty had reasonable grounds to suspect defendant had been involved in recent criminal activity.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.

___________________________

REARDON, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.

[1] Because this matter was resolved by plea, we draw the facts from the presentence report and the transcript of the hearing on the suppression motion.

[2] Defendant was wearing a white T-shirt, gray sweatpants, and a black jacket.