# People v. Acevedo

> California Court of Appeal · December 12, 1989 · 216 Cal. App. 3d 586

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731131

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES STEVEN ACEVEDO, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** December 12, 1989
- **Citations:** 216 Cal. App. 3d 586; 265 Cal. Rptr. 23; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sonenshine
- **Judges:** Crosby, Sonenshine
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731131

## Opinion text

SONENSHINE, J.
I concur with the result but withhold judgment at this time on the import of the quoted language of People v. McDowell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 551 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 758 P.2d 1060 ]. I believe that analysis is unnecessary to the opinion, in that the Attorney General’s inevitable discovery argument was not based on the theory a different warrant would have issued from any “judge in the world.” Rather, he argued “the officers could have searched the bag under the auspices of the warrant that arrived ten minutes later,” rendering it “independently admissible under the doctrine of inevitable discovery.” Therefore his argument was not that a *595 warrant would have issued, it was that one did issue and that the issued warrant inferentially encompassed the bag.
My review of respondent’s brief reveals not a single citation to McDowell. While respondent did attempt to inject such an analysis for the first time during oral argument, I believe the issue was not timely raised. The majority addresses the contention, but by disposing of an argument not raised by the parties, it is erecting a straw person to knock down.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 15, 1990. Panelli, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731131. Public record. Not legal advice.