Challenge to Wiretaps Rejected in Gang-related Murder Conspiracy Case

By Javier Lavagnino, Esq. on May 24, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Other Cases, A Plea is Vacated, and License Revocation Upheld

In Arthur v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, No. D055494, the Fourth District faced a challenge to a trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandate to set aside the Department of Motor Vehicles' suspension of petitioner's driver's license for driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater. In affirming the denial, the court held that substantial evidence supports the judgment as petitioner did not satisfy his burden of overcoming the Evidence Code section 664's presumption that the sobriety checkpoint was in compliance with the Ingersoll factors.

In People v. Woosley, No. C061440, the Third District faced People's challenge to the trial court's plea bargaining in defendant's conviction for first degree burglary, and for committing second degree burglary and petty theft while released on bail. In vacating the defendant's plea, the court held that the trial court's promise, over the prosecutor's objection to dismiss the enhancement and impose an agreed-upon sentence was an unlawful judicial plea bargain.

People v. Roberts, No. D053377 dealt with a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. In affirming the conviction, the court held that the wiretaps were obtained legally and minimized in accordance with the relevant statutes. Furthermore, although the court concluded that the trial court erred when it did not require the state to provide timely reports to the court under section 6 29.60 and to file an application to use non-targeted intercepted communications as soon as practicable as required by section 629.82(a)(1), this error was not reversible error. Lastly, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of motion to suppress evidence from the vehicle stop, the court's admission of gang evidence, and denial of a motion for severance after the co-defendant decided to testify.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard