People v. Mathews
Annotate this CaseThe victim was walking with his grandson. A man, his face covered, robbed him, struck the victim on the head with a gun, and fled. The victim then heard a “boom.” Other witnesses heard a gunshot and saw two men running: one had an injury and was holding a gun. A car picked them up. No witness identified Mathews. Within minutes, Mathews arrived at Highland Hospital. Mathews’s cell phone and bloody clothes were seized. The phone had been used near the robbery, then traveled to "near Highland Hospital.” Mathews was charged with second-degree robbery, with firearms allegations. Mathews unsuccessfully moved to suppress his clothing, observations of his wounds, and the cell phone evidence. The court of appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court remanded in light of S.B. 620, effective January 1, 2018, which vests sentencing courts with discretion to strike firearm enhancements, including the one imposed on Mathews, in the interest of justice, and applies retroactively. The court of appeal again concluded that the court properly denied the motion to suppress. When a probationer gives police a false name and a record check of that name fails to reveal that the probationer is subject to a search condition, the probationer is estopped from challenging the legality of an ensuing search that would have been authorized by the condition.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.