People v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 17 August 2020
• Docket Number: D075377
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT BRYANT, Defendant and Appellant.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT BRYANT, Defendant and Appellant.

D075377

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

August 17, 2020

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARINGNO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 17, 2020, be modified as follows:

1. On page 25, footnote 16, delete the first two sentences and replace with the following two sentences:

"In a petition for rehearing, Bryant argues that he raised the issue of the reasonableness of the eight-day delay in his reply brief in response to arguments that the People asserted in their respondent's brief. Even if we were to find that this explanation demonstrates good cause for the failure to raise this issue sooner, additional considerations persuade us that it would be unfair to consider the merits of Bryant's contention that the deputies' eight-day seizure of the backpack prior to obtaining the warrant was not justified by sufficiently exigent circumstances, or that they unreasonably delayed in obtaining the search warrant for Bryant's backpack, rendering the search unlawful."

There is no change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

Copies to: All Parties

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. Nos. SCE384541, SCS300549)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.

Janice R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I.INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted Vincent Bryant of first degree burglary, grand theft, and receipt of stolen property. The stolen items underlying each offense wererecovered from Bryant's backpack, which was seized by deputies at the time of Bryant's arrest and subsequently searched pursuant to a search warrant. Photographs of the backpack and its contents were introduced in evidence at trial.

Bryant, acting in pro per, brought several motions seeking suppression of the evidence obtained from his backpack on the ground that the deputies' seizure of the backpack violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial court denied the motions. Bryant, who is represented by appointed counsel on appeal, challenges these rulings, arguing that the court erred when it denied his suppression motions because the underlying evidence demonstrated that the deputies lacked probable cause to seize his backpack. We affirm.

II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Kirk P.'s belongings were stolen from his room at the Ayres Hotel in Alpine, California, in a sequence of events that began on August 27, 2018. That evening, Kirk and another hotel guest were drinking beer on the hotel's front patio when a man, identified at trial as Bryant, walked up and sat at the next table, rummaged through a plastic grocery bag, and occasionally chimed in on the men's conversation.

Later in the evening, Kirk was awakened by loud knocking at his hotel door. Kirk opened the door to find Bryant, who told Kirk that Kirk had to leave his hotel room, purportedly to deal with some "drunk women" who had just arrived at the hotel and were causing a commotion. Kirk left his room, leaving the door open, only to find that the "drunk women" were two elderly women who were checking into the hotel. When Kirk returned to his room,he noticed that his cell phone was missing. The next morning, he realized that his laptop was also gone. Kirk's daughter reported the incident to police.

Deputy Sheriffs John Greene and Anthony Pratola responded to the hotel on the morning of August 28. They conducted an investigation that included interviewing Kirk and his son Conner P.; viewing hotel video surveillance footage that showed a figure entering and then exiting Kirk's hotel room carrying a light-colored plastic grocery bag; and viewing surveillance footage from a nearby gas station where, according to Conner, Bryant had purchased cigars earlier in the evening.

Later in the afternoon of August 28, Deputies Greene and Pratola responded to a report of a disturbance at a Rite-Aid across the street from the Ayres Hotel. When they arrived, they were directed to the person allegedly causing the disturbance, who was seated in the pharmacy next to a black backpack. Both deputies immediately recognized the person as the man from the gas station video footage.¹ A criminal records check confirmed that the man was Bryant and that he had a history of two recently cleared warrants for burglary and grand theft. Conner subsequently identified Bryant in a curbside identification.

Greene and Pratola arrested Bryant and took him to the Alpine sheriff's station. After Bryant asked to speak to a lawyer and refused to grant consent to search his backpack, Greene decided to release him but to retain custody of his backpack pending issuance of a search warrant authorizing a search of his backpack. When Bryant was released, he wasprovided a certificate of release pursuant to Penal Code² sections 849, subdivision (b)(1), and 851.6.³

After obtaining a search warrant, Pratola opened the backpack and found Kirk's laptop and cell phone. He took photographs of the backpack and its contents and returned the laptop and cell phone to Kirk.

Bryant was arrested and charged in a criminal complaint with burglary of an inhabited dwelling, grand theft of personal property, and receipt of stolen property. He was represented by a deputy public defender at the preliminary hearing on October 3, 2018. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the court set a motion cut-off date of October 17, 2018, and a trial date of November 19, 2018.

On the date that the trial was scheduled to begin, Bryant moved to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). The court granted the motion, finding that Bryant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be represented by counsel. At the prosecution's request, the trial was continued for one week.

On November 26, 2018, the parties appeared for trial. During motions in limine, Bryant orally moved to suppress evidence obtained from his backpack on the ground that the seizure of the backpack violated his rightsunder the Fourth Amendment. The court denied the motion, and Bryant was subsequently convicted on all counts.

Following his conviction, Bryant filed three posttrial motions in which he renewed his argument that the seizure of his backpack violated the Fourth Amendment. At the sentencing hearing on December 28, 2018, the court denied the motions and sentenced Bryant to a prison term of six years.⁴ Bryant timely appealed.⁵

III.DISCUSSION

Bryant, represented by appointed appellate counsel, challenges the trial court's denial of his oral motion to suppress brought on the first day of trial, as well as the trial court's denial of his posttrial motions. Bryant contends that the court erred in denying each of these motions because the seizure of his backpack was not supported by probable cause.⁶ We reject thiscontention. As we discuss post, our reasons for doing so turn on the distinct factual and procedural issues presented by each motion.

A. Motion to Suppress

1. Additional Procedural Background

On the first day of trial, the court heard motions in limine. During the in limine hearing, Bryant brought an oral motion under "the United States Constitution" which "speaks of illegal search and seizures," to suppress all evidence obtained from his backpack.⁷ Bryant argued that the certificate of release presented to him upon his release from custody⁸ represented a concession by the deputies that "there were no facts to arrest Mr. Bryant." Since his backpack was "an extension of" him, he argued, the deputies also necessarily lacked probable cause to justify the seizure of his backpack.⁹

The prosecution responded that Bryant's motion "should have been brought up before trial, with moving papers [and] with notice to the People outlining these arguments . . . . That has not been done. He cannot come the day of the trial with a jury waiting outside to raise a pre-trial motion that should have been brought a long time ago." As to the merits, the prosecution argued that "the deputies lawfully detained him. They seized the backpack. They obtained a search warrant signed by a reviewing judge. They searchedthe backpack and then found a stolen computer and a stolen phone. [¶] So at the end of the day, even if the court will entertain the argument, we have a valid search warrant that was reviewed by a judge and felt there was probable cause to go in there and retrieve these stolen items."

In response to the prosecution's characterization of his motion as untimely, Bryant stated, "what I just heard from the D.A. is ineffective assistance of counsel. I was not my counsel. But he just said my lawyer was ineffective. This is a gross negligence."

The court responded, "Not quite. If anyone was going to bring any motion, whether it should or should not have been brought, I think the argument is that it should have been brought as [a] pre-trial motion and it is untimely brought at the time of trial. [¶] He is absolutely correct, but I don't see that as being an impediment to me hearing what you have to say."

The court proceeded to entertain the merits of the motion. In a colloquy with Bryant, the court analogized the situation to one in which a car is reported stolen, lawfully seized, and subsequently searched based on a valid warrant. Bryant countered that "[t...