P. v. Dixon

Filed 5/30/06  P. v. Dixon CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Ted E. Thompson for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef and Jonathan J. Kline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

INTRODUCTION

            Defendant Dale Allen Dixon appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, §  11377, subd. (a)) and he admitted six prior serious or violent felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§  667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and three prior prison terms (id., §  667.5, subd.  (b)).  The trial court struck five of the six prior convictions and one of the three prior prison terms for sentencing and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison.[1]

            On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the information.  He further contends the record does not reflect a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury trial on the prior conviction allegations and does not demonstrate an admission of those allegations.  We reject defendant's contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

            On March 25, 2004, a team of Los Angeles police officers was monitoring the Grand Motel on South La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles for narcotics activity.  They saw defendant arrive at the motel in a car that had been reported stolen.  After observing defendant's actions for a period of time, they approached him and asked to speak with him.  He threw six plastic bags containing methamphetamine into one of the motel rooms and attempted to enter the room himself.  The officers arrested defendant and read him his rights.  He told them that he had rented the car and knew it was overdue, but he had not returned it yet.  When confronted with the plastic bags containing methamphetamine, he said that he and a friend had purchased them in Hollywood and were going to smoke the drugs.[2]

DISCUSSION

Denial of the Penal Code Section 995 Motion

            Defendant moved to set aside the information based upon the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence to establish that the substance in the plastic bags was methamphetamine.  The trial court denied the motion.

            As the People point out, the erroneous denial of a motion to set aside the information â€