Filed 10/25/17 P. v. Mendez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERNESTO H. MENDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071261



(Super. Ct. No. SCD267699)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed.
Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles Ragland and Alana C. Butler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.



Defendant and appellant Ernesto H. Mendez was sentenced to four years in state prison for violating Penal Code section 29800 subdivision (a)(1), (possession of a firearm by a felon), and one prior strike. Mendez asks this court to independently review the sealed search warrant affidavit and in camera proceeding to determine whether the trial court improperly denied his motions to unseal the affidavit, traverse and quash the warrant, and to suppress evidence. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying these motions and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
San Diego Police Officer Michael Ursey participated in a search of Mendez's residence. While guarding the perimeter of the residence, Officer Ursey saw Mendez walking down the street. Officer Ursey and another officer approached Mendez, informed him they were conducting a search of his residence, and asked if there were any drugs or weapons inside. Mendez told the officers there was a shotgun behind a dresser, which the officers subsequently found.
Mendez was charged with violating Penal Code section 29800 subdivision (a)(1) and Health and Safety Code section 11350 subdivision (a). The information also alleged that Mendez had one prior strike.
The People refused Mendez's discovery request for a copy of the affidavit supporting the warrant to search his residence. The affidavit was ordered sealed. Mendez responded by filing motions to unseal the affidavit, traverse and quash the search warrant, and to suppress evidence. Mendez requested an in camera hearing pursuant to People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs) to determine whether the affidavit was properly sealed and whether there was probable cause to support the warrant.
The trial court conducted the hearing in the presence of the People and the warrant's affiant. It concluded the affidavit was properly sealed, as there were sufficient grounds to maintain the confidentiality of the informant. The court also denied Mendez's motions to traverse and quash the warrant. It found there were no misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit, and that the affidavit established probable cause. The court sealed the transcript of the in camera proceeding.
The People elected to dismiss the Health and Safety Code section 11350 subdivision (a) charge prior to trial. Following a bifurcated trial, a jury found Mendez guilty of violating Penal Code section 29800 subdivision (a)(1). The parties stipulated to the admission of the strike prior.
On appeal, Mendez requests an independent review of the sealed materials to determine whether his motions to unseal the affidavit, traverse and quash the warrant, and suppress evidence were properly denied.
DISCUSSION
Following our independent review of the sealed affidavit and in camera transcript, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying Mendez's motions to unseal the affidavit. We agree that sealing the affidavit is necessary to maintain the informant's confidentiality, and that the informant is not a material witness to Mendez's case. (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We further conclude there is no reasonable probability of material misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit, and that under the totality of the circumstances the affidavit established probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. (Id. at pp. 974-975). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


DATO, J.

WE CONCUR:



HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.



IRION, J.