People v. Nava CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 2015B255125California2,804 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

FACTS

Around 1:00 a.m. on October 1, 2013, Ventura Police Officers Miguel Martinez and Cody Uebelhardt were on foot patrol near a motel when they noticed a taxi driven by Jose Flores with appellant and two women inside. Martinez recognized appellant, who was on probation, and performed a records check on him. Uebelhardt also recognized him and said, "Hey, Nava," as the taxi passed by. The

1 In his opening brief, appellant argued that the trial court's order imposing a presentence investigation fee must be stricken because the evidence did not support his ability to pay that fee. In his reply brief, appellant concedes the argument is foreclosed under People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 853, because he neither objected to the fee in the trial court nor asserted an inability to pay it.

2 officers got into their patrol cars and conducted a traffic stop. They instructed the occupants to put up their hands and they all complied. Appellant, however, reached down under the front passenger seat and put his hand back up only after being repeatedly ordered to do so. No one else in the cab moved during this time. After the officers removed everyone from the vehicle, they found…

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.