P. v. Nesbitt
At first blush this case appeared to present two problematic issues: (1) whether the trial court could, consistent with People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, deny a motion to suppress without a full evidentiary hearing; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying a motion to continue the suppression hearing brought by the defendant when the defendant indicated he was not prepared to go forward with the motion to suppress. These issues prompted no less than two rounds of briefing requests from this court. Court should add, though, that defendant Nesbitt should not feel too bad about the ineffective assistance of counsel he rendered to himself on his homemade suppression motion. The trial court was presented with the fact that at the time of the search which was the subject of that motion, Nesbitt was on probation subject to a search and seizure condition. That is, a warrant the sole substantive basis of his suppression motion was not needed. In other words, his own ineffective assistance to himself was harmless.
Comments on P. v. Nesbitt