Modification: People v. Mendoza

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BLANCA LUNA MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. E071835

(Super.Ct.No. SWF1707770)

California Courts of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division Two

Filed February 18, 2020

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

We deny the People's petition for rehearing and modify the opinion filed in this matter on February 5, 2020, by adding the following language to the opinion as footnote 5, appended to the end of the last sentence of the first partial paragraph on page 17, after "innocuous."

At oral argument and in a motion for rehearing, the People argue our conclusion that Mendoza's conduct wasn't sufficient to arouse reasonable suspicion even assuming she knew the person observing her was law enforcement was nonbinding dicta. We disagree. "It is well settled that where two independent reasons are given for a decision, neither one is to be considered mere dictum, since there is no more reason for calling one ground the real basis of the decision than the other. The ruling on both grounds is the judgment of the court and each is of equal validity." (Bank of Italy etc. Assn. v. Bentley (1933) 217 Cal. 644, 650; see also Woods v. Interstate Realty Co. (1949) 337 U.S. 535, 537 ["[W]here a decision rests on two or more grounds, none can be relegated to the category of obiter dictum"]; Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 485 ["When an appellate court bases its decision on alternative grounds, none is dictum"]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 512, pp. 577-578.)

SLOUGH

Acting P. J.

We concur:

FIELDS

J.

MENETREZ

J.