Bautista

People v. Bautista

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 229·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 2004H024442, H026395California5,280 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

Brothers and codefendants Dave and Michael Bautista (Dave and Michael) appeal their conviction of possession of marijuana for sale based upon their guilty pleas after their motion to quash a search warrant and suppress evidence was denied by the trial court. On appeal, both contend that the court erred in finding that a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officer did not impermissibly use military personnel to obtain the evidence supporting the search warrant in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). ( 18 U.S.C. § 1385 .) In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which we have ordered considered together with the appeal, Dave asserts that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not advise Dave that he would be subject to mandatory deportation and exclusion from the United States for conviction of the charge to which he pled.

FACTS

On July 6, 2000, DEA Agent Joseph Muenchow and other agents made a third trip to a public storage facility at 1395 Mabury Road in San Jose on an investigation unrelated to this case that began in November 1999. Because the two sheriff’s narcotics detection dog and handler teams that Muenchow normally…

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.