Opinion
A168656
08-14-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN WILLIAM GOBBIN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC220442A)
MILLER, J.
Following searches of his residence, vehicles and cell phone, defendant John William Gobbin was charged in an amended complaint with two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale and one count of possession of a ballistic knife with various related enhancements, and subsequently entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced. The sole issue on appeal is Gobbin's request that this court "conduct an independent review of the sealed portions of the search warrant affidavit that identity [sic] the confidential informant" and determine whether there was sufficient "rationale for the sealing of portions of the search warrant affidavit" and whether the warrant established probable cause. The Attorney General does not object to Gobbin's request for independent review. We have conducted this independent review and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2022, a detective with the Central Marin Police Authority learned from a confidential informant that Gobbin was selling methamphetamine throughout Marin County. Based on this information, law enforcement officers began conducting surveillance of the apartment complex where Gobbin lived. The following background facts leading up to Gobbin's arrest are from the Marin County Probation Department's presentence report and appear to be derived from the Marin County Sheriff's Office arrest report.
There was no preliminary hearing. Both parties have relied on these background facts from the probation department's report in their briefs on appeal.
On August 10, 2022, detectives executed a search warrant on Gobbin's residence and two vehicles. In Gobbin's bedroom, detectives found a bag they had previously seen him carrying; inside the bag were two large Ziploc baggies of methamphetamine weighing 97.1 grams and 179.9 grams, and a clear plastic vial with 24.3 more grams. Gobbin's wallet, next to the bag, contained his driver's license, social security card, credit cards, $600 and three fake $100 bills. There was a small cardboard box with six individually packaged Ziploc bags with about an ounce of methamphetamine in each, ready to be sold. All totaled, there were approximately 487 grams of methamphetamine in Gobbin's apartment, estimated by the detective to amount to about 2,435 individual doses.
Throughout the bedroom were drug packaging materials, including functioning scales with methamphetamine residue, multiple clear plastic baggies, paraphernalia, and a suspected "pay-owe" sheet with names, nicknames and numbers that appeared to denote money owed. Detectives also found a realistic looking replica handgun, Gobbin's and his wife's cell phones, psilocybin mushrooms, two Percocet pills and 52 "unidentified blue pills." A search of one of Gobbin's vehicles turned up a realistic looking metal replica AR-style rifle and another functioning scale with methamphetamine residue.
Gobbin was arrested and "made a spontaneous statement that it was only simple possession, not for sale."
On August 15, 2022, Gobbin was released from custody. Two days later, a forensic examination of his cell phone revealed conversations between Gobbin and others soliciting drugs from him and arranging dollar and substance amounts and places to meet.
On August 30, 2022, detectives executed another search warrant of Gobbin's residence and vehicles. In a backpack recovered from the vehicle, they found two Ziploc baggies containing about 112 grams total of methamphetamine, a vial with six more grams, two digital scales, multiple empty clear plastic baggies, and a ballistic style knife with Gobbin's initials on it. Gobbin was arrested again. He continued to claim the drugs were for his personal use. Gobbin's wife later told detectives that the backpack was his, not hers as she and Gobbin had claimed at the time of the search. They each stated they did not sell methamphetamine "anymore," but brought it to friends' homes to use and share.
On August 31, 2022, the Marin County District Attorney filed a first amended complaint charging Gobbin with two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; counts 1-2) and possession of a ballistic knife (Pen. Code, § 21110; count 3). As to the drug counts, there were three special allegations: a quantity-based restriction on probation (§ 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)), a sentencing aggravator based on quantity (§ 1170.73, subd. (a)), and a sentencing aggravator based on methamphetamine in crystal form (§ 1170.74). The amended complaint also alleged Gobbin had a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d); § 667, subd. (b)-(i)), had been convicted of seven prior felonies (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)), and committed counts 2 and 3 while on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)).
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Gobbin filed a request for discovery and disclosure of the sealed portion of the search warrant affidavits, including a request for disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant referred to in the affidavits. In the written request, Gobbin asked in the alternative that the trial court "hold an in camera hearing to determine if the search warrant should be quashed or traversed."
At a hearing on January 13, 2023, the court stated that it was treating Gobbin's motion as a "Hobbs" motion, even though it was not denominated as such and Gobbin had not filed a motion to quash or traverse the warrant. The court stated that "on that basis I agreed to conduct that initial in camera review of the sealed affidavits in this case."
People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs).
The court then made the following findings:
"One, there exists a valid ground for maintaining the informant's confidentiality. Specifically, there is no basis for any finding that the informant is a material witness on the issues of guilt or could give exonerating testimony. And two, nondisclosure of the informant for these reasons would not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
"Second finding. The extent of the sealing is justified as necessary to avoid revealing the identity of the informant.
"Third, there is no basis for finding that any statements contained in the sealed portion of the affidavit are false and made knowingly or with conscious disregard for the truth. And under People v. Benjamin [(1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 264] counsels [sic] of course, I did consider the results of the search on the issue of truthfulness of the statement, but, of course, not on the issue of probable cause at all.
"And finally, that under the totality of the circumstances presented, the search warrant and affidavit establish the probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the place to be searched."
On February 24, 2023, Gobbin pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (count 1) and admitted the prior strike allegation. The remaining counts were dismissed. On May 11, 2023, defendant was sentenced to the agreed upon term of two years, eight months.
This appeal was timely filed, pursuant to section 1538.5, subdivision (m).
DISCUSSION
In his barebones brief on appeal, Gobbin asks us to "conduct an independent review of the sealed portions of the search warrant affidavit that identify the confidential informant" and determine whether there was sufficient rationale for sealing documents revealing the informant's identity and whether the warrant established probable cause. The Attorney General does not object to appellant's request.
"Any part of a search warrant affidavit may be sealed if necessary to protect the identity of a confidential informant. (Evid. Code, § 1041; Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 971.) When that happens, and the defendant moves to traverse or quash the warrant, the trial court must conduct an in camera hearing following a two-step procedure established in Hobbs. The first step is for the court to determine whether, and to what extent, the sealed portion should remain sealed to protect the identity of the informant. (Hobbs, supra, at 972.) . . . We review the trial court ruling on a motion to unseal a search warrant affidavit for an abuse of discretion. (See Hobbs, at 976.)
"If the court determines any portion of the affidavit should remain sealed, it then proceeds to the second step, which 'requires the court to determine whether "there is a reasonable probability the defendant would prevail" on his suppression motion.' (People v. Heslington (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 947, 957.) If the defendant moved to traverse the warrant, the court must determine whether the defendant's general allegations of material misrepresentations or omissions are supported by the public and sealed portions of the affidavit. (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 974.) For the defendant to succeed on this claim, it must be shown that '(1) the affidavit included a false statement made "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth," and (2) "the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause."' (Ibid.)
"If the defendant moved to quash the warrant, the court must evaluate the affidavit's showing of probable cause under a similar procedure. (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 975.) The court must assess 'whether, under the "totality of the circumstances" presented in the search warrant affidavit . . . there was "a fair probability" that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the place searched pursuant to the warrant.' (Ibid.)' "[T]he warrant can be upset only if the affidavit fails as a matter of law . . . to set forth sufficient competent evidence supportive of the magistrate's finding of probable cause . . . ." '" (People v. Washington (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 776, 794.)
We have undertaken the independent review Gobbin has requested, including review of the sealed portions of the affidavit concerning the confidential informant. Our independent review confirms the trial court's rulings are correct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Richman, Acting P. J., Desautels, J.