Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. John Raymond Schugart

December 5, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JOHN RAYMOND SCHUGART, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 11F5149)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.

P. v. Schugart CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

After his motion to suppress the evidence was denied and in exchange for no state prison at the outset and dismissal of the remaining counts, defendant John Raymond Schugart entered a no contest plea to carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle and possessing drug paraphernalia.

Granted probation, defendant appeals. His sole contention is that the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion. We will affirm.

FACTS

On May 12, 2011, California Department of Fish and Game Warden Gary Densford stopped defendant, suspecting he was driving on a suspended license. Defendant admitted his license was suspended. He was found to be in possession of a loaded .22-caliber revolver, concealed on his person, and smoking pipes.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion because Warden Densford did not have a reasonable suspicion to detain him. We reject his contention.

Background

At the suppression hearing, Warden Densford testified that he is a state peace officer employed by the Department of Fish and Game. At 9:40 a.m. on May 12, 2011, Warden Densford, in uniform and on patrol in a marked patrol car on Railroad Flat Road, observed defendant driving a vehicle in the opposite direction. The warden recognized defendant and the vehicle from a previous encounter at defendant's residence on April 13, 2011.

On April 13, 2011, Warden Densford contacted defendant and asked him for his driver's license to verify his identity, and defendant responded that his driver's license had been suspended. At that time, Warden Densford ran defendant's name and date of birth through dispatch and learned that defendant's driver's license had been suspended for a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction. Defendant confirmed that his license had been suspended for two DUI convictions and stated that he was unsure when he would get his license back.

Seeing defendant driving on May 12, 2011, Warden Densford stopped him. The warden's first question to defendant was "did you get your his license yet." Defendant answered in the negative. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.