892 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1989), 88-5166, U.S. v. Quick

Docket Nº:88-5166.
Citation:892 F.2d 84
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Collin Lee QUICK, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:December 12, 1989
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 84

892 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1989)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Collin Lee QUICK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-5166.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 12, 1989

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted May 2, 1989.

C.D.Cal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; James M. Ideman, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FLETCHER, NELSON and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

The United States appeals from the dismissal of the indictment against Collin Lee Quick for lack of evidence. Quick was indicted by a federal grand jury on three counts of weapons violations, three counts of narcotics violations and one count of possession of an implement for making false documents. All of the counts are based upon evidence obtained through a parole search of Quick's residence. Quick moved to suppress the evidence claiming that his sentence of parole was invalid and, therefore, that the parole search was invalid. The district court granted defendant's motion to suppress on the ground that Quick's parole was invalid due to the sentencing judge's failure to mention the parole in violation of Cal.Pen.Code § 1170(c).

We agree with the district court that a sentence of parole in addition to the defendant's sentence of incarceration would have been invalid. However, since defendant's parole was the result of his early release from prison and was within the three year period of his original sentence, it was a valid parole. Therefore, we remand to the district court to determine whether the parole search that yielded the evidence was based on reasonable suspicion.

DISCUSSION

  1. A sentence of parole in addition to Appellee's original sentence of three years incarceration is invalid.

    California Penal Code § 1170(c) provides that at the time of sentencing, the court "shall ... inform the defendant that as part of the sentence after expiration of the term he or she may be on parole for a period" The judge who sentenced Quick in 1983 did not inform him that he would be sentenced to a parole term in addition to his three-year sentence. In fact, the judge stated...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP