United States v. Jesus Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 3, 2023
• Docket: 22-50033
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50033

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 5:21-cr-00057-JGB-1 v.

JESUS SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2023 Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, BERZON, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Jesus Santiago Martinez pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 931(a). Officers searched his person and vehicle

following a traffic stop. They found an AK-47 rifle, an XD-45 handgun, loaded

magazines, a red dot laser sight, and body armor. At trial, Martinez moved to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. suppress the evidence as the fruit of an illegal search. After a hearing, the district

court orally denied the motion. The district court said it would issue a written

order, but it never did so. Martinez subsequently entered into a guilty plea. He

reserved the right to appeal the suppression motion and to withdraw his guilty plea

if he were to prevail on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

“When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state

its essential findings on the record.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d). This requirement is

mandatory. See United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 602–04 (9th Cir. 2010),

superseded by statute on other grounds by 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1); United States

v. Prieto-Villa, 910 F.2d 601, 610 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing Rule 12(d)’s

identical predecessor). The district court failed to do so in this case.

The district court was not relieved of this requirement when defense counsel

conceded that there was no factual dispute. Whatever the parties’ position, Rule

12(d) required the court to state essential findings of fact based on which it ruled

the officers acted reasonably. See Wright, 625 F.3d at 602–04.

The importance of adherence to the requirements of Rule 12(d) is

underscored in cases such as this, in which several key facts are not clear from the

record. See United States v. Castrillon, 716 F.2d 1279, 1282–83 (9th Cir. 1983).

For example, our review of Martinez’s claim that police lacked reasonable

2 suspicion and probable cause for either search is frustrated by a lack of factual

findings as to the timing of the allegedly unconstitutional searches. It is not clear

from the body camera video or police statements in the record when police began

or resumed the search of Martinez’s car relative to the search of his person. It is

also not clear if the search of Martinez’s person took place when he was removed

from the car or after he was placed in handcuffs.

We therefore vacate and remand to the district court in order to allow that

court to state its essential findings of fact on the record. The district court, in its

discretion, is free to conduct a further evidentiary proceeding and, if appropriate, to

reconsider its ruling on the motion to suppress. Our panel retains jurisdiction over

any appeal taken from a further order of the district court.

VACATED and REMANDED.1

1 Costs are taxed against the government. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(4). 3