Opinion
E064361
02-07-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD RAMIREZ RIOS, Defendant and Appellant.
Eric A. Dumars, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Seth Friedman, and Meagan J. Beale, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. INF1402850) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Anthony R. Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed. Eric A. Dumars, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Seth Friedman, and Meagan J. Beale, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Richard Ramirez Rios is serving nine years eight months in prison after pleading guilty to 10 charges relating to drug sales and firearm possession. Defendant asks this court to independently review the sealed in camera proceedings and search warrant affidavit to determine whether the trial court erred in sealing the affidavit and/or denying the motion to traverse and quash the warrant. As discussed post, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On October 10, 2014, officers assigned to the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force served a search warrant for defendant's home and vehicle. Defendant voluntarily cooperated with the search, providing a house key, pointing out cash, certain weapons and drugs, and stating a firearm could be found in an offsite storage locker. During the search, officers found methamphetamine, marijuana, pistols, rifles, and ammunition.
On August 18, 2015, the People filed a first amended information charging defendant with one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), one count of possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), seven counts of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony and while being addicted to a narcotic drug (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of unlawfully possessing ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)). The People also alleged, as to the methamphetamine possession charge, that defendant was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)) and had a prior conviction for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2).
On November 6, 2014, defendant filed motions to quash and traverse a sealed search warrant, suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, for an in camera review of the sealed documents, and to discover the identity of the confidential informant. After an in camera hearing on December 17, 2014, the trial court found that the search warrant was properly sealed and denied the motion to traverse and squash. The court released a redacted version of the probable cause statement to defense counsel. The court denied without prejudice the motion to discover the identity of the confidential informant.
On February 10, 2015, defendant asked the trial court to reconsider the motion to discover the identity of the confidential informant. After an in camera review, the court denied the motion.
On March 9, 2015, defendant filed additional motions to quash and traverse the sealed search warrant and to suppress evidence. After an in camera review on April 3, 2015, the court denied these motions.
On August 24, 2015, defendant pled guilty to all charges and admitted the allegations. The court sentenced him to nine years eight months in prison as follows: the midterm of two years for possessing methamphetamine for sale, plus three years for the prior drug conviction enhancement, plus four years for the firearms enhancement, plus eight months for possessing marijuana for sale, with concurrent two-year terms on each of the firearm and ammunition convictions.
This appeal followed. The trial court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the transcripts of the in camera hearings, as well as the sealed warrant and affidavit. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions to quash and traverse the sealed search warrant and to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. (People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 959, 964, 972-977.) Probable cause justified the issuance of the search warrant. The informant was not a material witness to this case, and therefore his identity was not necessary to defendant's case.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: HOLLENHORST
J. McKINSTER
J.