P. v. Adams
Filed 2/15/06 P. v. Adams CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HAROLD JAMES ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | B180120 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA262188) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ruth Ann Kwan, Judge. Affirmed
Robert M. Sweet, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster and Zee Rodriguez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Harold James Adams appeals from judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and his admission that he had served three separate prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i)). After striking two prison priors, appellant was sentenced to prison for a total of seven years. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to definitively respond to a jury question, the court abused its discretion in summarily denying appellant's Pitchess[1] motion and that this court should independently examine the sealed Pitchess record. For reasons explained in the opinion, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On March 16, 2004, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Dana Oviatt was on patrol in a marked police vehicle with Officers Maloney and Rogers when the officer saw appellant seated on a milk crate in violation of a city code which prohibits sitting, sleeping or lying on the public sidewalk. Officer Oviatt stopped his vehicle and the officers exited. As Officer Oviatt approached appellant, appellant placed his left hand quickly into his sweatshirt and when he withdrew his hand, he was clenching a â€
