P. v. Wurtz 11/22/05 CA6

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: H028217

Case Date: 02/22/2006

Preview:Filed 11/22/05 P. v. Wurtz CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PETER JEFFREY WURTZ, Defendant and Appellant.

H028217 (Santa Cruz County Super.Ct.No. F10216)

At issue in this case is whether probable cause existed to support the warrant under which deputies searched defendant's home and found, among other things, three American Express convenience checks that had apparently been stolen out of a victim's mailbox some eight weeks before. Defendant challenges probable cause on the ground that the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant contained stale information. Statements that defendant had forged and attempted to deposit a fourth check into his own bank account shortly after the checks were stolen were asserted in the deputy's affidavit as a basis for the existence of probable cause in support of the warrant. Following the search of his residence, defendant, along with two codefendants, was arrested and charged with various forgery and identity-theft violations. The trial court rejected his challenge to the warrant as lacking in probable cause and he pleaded guilty to some of the charges. The remaining charges were dismissed. The court imposed a stipulated 16-month prison sentence and a $400 restitution fund fine.

On appeal, defendant reprises his challenge to the warrant. He primarily contends that the information contained in the supporting affidavit about his prior unsuccessful attempt to negotiate the stolen check was stale for purposes of establishing probable cause, and that the search later conducted under the warrant was consequently in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He further contends that the Leon1 good faith exception does not apply, and that on these bases, the trial court erred by denying his challenge to the warrant and his motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5.2 He finally urges error in the court's imposition of the restitution fund fine. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. Procedural Background

Defendant was charged by second amended complaint in count 1 with conspiracy to possess a forged driver's license (

Download P. v. Wurtz 11/22/05 CA6.pdf