Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA106700
THE COURT:Brian Keith Williams appeals from the judgment entered following his no-contest plea to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). His plea followed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 and subsequent motion to quash or traverse the search warrant. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three-years, formal probation, subject to spending 180 days in jail.
On July 19, 2008, Judge Leland Tipton issued a search warrant for 1533 East 101st Street, in the City and County of Los Angeles. The warrant authorized night service to search for firearms and items tending to show gang affiliation. The affidavit in support of the search warrant was sealed as it was based on information received from a reliable confidential informant (CI).
The affidavit stated that a CI, who had proven to be reliable in the past, leading to numerous arrests and recovery of illegal weapons and narcotics, had provided information to the affiant. The CI described the residence at 1533 East 101st Street, and said that a Black male, 28 to 30 years old, five feet six to eight inches tall, weighing between 200 and 220 pounds was selling marijuana at that location and possibly possessed a handgun there. That person was a Franklin Square Crips gang member. The affidavit stated that the affiant used department resources and confirmed that appellant met the physical description given by the CI, resided at the address given by the CI, and had a prior felony conviction for evading a peace officer. The affiant questioned the CI, who demonstrated substantial knowledge about weapons and narcotics.
On July 23, 2008, Detective Adan Torres and a team of officers served the search warrant at the specified location. One officer knocked on the door. That officer saw appellant come out of a side door and throw a bag into a neighbor’s yard. The bag was retrieved and contained several baggies of a green, leafy substance, later determined to be 29.3 grams of marijuana. Inside the house, officers found a digital scale and empty baggies in appellant’s bedroom. Officer Torres opined that the marijuana was possessed for sale.
On October 9, 2008, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized in the search of his residence or to dismiss the case. He claimed that the search was without a warrant because the warrant purporting to authorize the search was unsupported by a reviewable affidavit of probable cause, as the affidavit had been sealed in its entirety. Appellant argued that this prevented him from challenging the warrant and that the only portion of the affidavit that could properly have been concealed was that which would necessarily reveal the identity of the CI.
On January 7, 2009, appellant’s motion to suppress was heard. The trial court conducted an in camera hearing regarding the warrant and affidavit and ordered the affidavit be provided to defense counsel, with redactions that the trial court determined were necessary to protect the anonymity of the CI.
On May 20, 2009, appellant filed a supplemental motion to quash or traverse and suppress evidence claiming that even in light of the redacted affidavit, the warrant was still deficient. He argued that there was no information concerning the allegation that appellant was selling marijuana from his home in support of a gang and that the CI was untested. Appellant claimed that the CI gave no particularized information that the defendant was selling from his home and that “the warrant is based on the bald accusation of an untested informant without any facts to back up the accusation.”
On July 14, 2009, the trial court conducted an in camera hearing in which it found the sealed version of the warrant identical to the copy of the warrant.
On July 23, 2009, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to quash or traverse, finding sufficient cause for issuance of the warrant and that there were no material misrepresentations or falsities made by the affiant.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On December 22, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment under review is affirmed.