In Re Frank S.
People v. Frank S.
Opinion
Opinion
Gemello, J.
Defendant Frank S. contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence discovered incident to his arrest. He argues that the arresting officer’s violation of the knock-and-announce rule requires exclusion of the evidence. The claim fails because the United States Supreme Court recently held in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) 547 U.S. _ [ 165 L.Ed.2d 56 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 ] that violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not justify application of the exclusionary rule. In the unpublished parts of this decision, we also reject defendant’s claims that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the California Youth Authority and that the court failed to exercise its discretion in setting the maximum term of confinement.
Procedural Background
A petition filed in Contra Costa County Juvenile Court alleged that defendant Frank S. (bom in October 1987) came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on an allegation of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The petition alleged nine prior sustained offenses for purposes of disposition. The juvenile court sustained the petition.