People v. Lewis CA3

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 (Tully).) We recite the relevant facts in light of this deferential standard. Because we are determining whether defense counsel performed ineffectively by failing to renew the suppression motion prior to trial, we also include relevant facts adduced after the suppression hearing. (See People v. Hart (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 479, 486 (Hart) [when reviewing counsel’s failure to renew suppression motion in trial court, “it is necessary to determine the legality of the search in order to determine whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective”].) On November 29, 2021, Officers Evelia Rios and Joshua Smith saw a Mercedes with “extremely dark” windows parked along the curb with its engine running. Believing that the dark tinted windows violated Vehicle Code section 26708, the…