Munoz

People v. Munoz

Good Law
1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1122·21 Cal. App. 3d 805·98 Cal. Rptr. 758
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 3, 1971Crim. 19270California1,413 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

We granted a rehearing in this case in order that we might consider the applicability of the opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 564 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ], to defendant Mata’s conviction. That issue has been briefed and we have considered the arguments made to us. We .conclude that, on the record before us, Coolidge does not require a reversal. Accordingly, we re-adopt portions of our former (non-published) opinion, with such changes as are required to include a discussion of the Coolidge issue.

Defendants, together with Manuel Munoz, were charged in counts I and in with grand theft, in violation of subdivision 3 of section 487 of the Penal Code and, in counts II, IV, V and VI, with receiving stolen property, in violation of section 496 of the Penal Code. A prior felony conviction was charged against each of the appellants. Defendant Mata’s motion under section 995 of the Penal Code was denied; defendant Munoz’ motion was granted as to count V and denied as to the other counts. Motions to suppress, under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, were made and denied. Trial by jury was duly waived and the case was submitted on the transcript of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.