P. v. Waegner
Filed 7/31/06 P. v. Waegner CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY CHARLES WAEGNER, Defendant and Appellant. | E038181 (Super.Ct.No. FVI016684) O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Dennis L. Cava, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Meagan J. Beale, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Shari Lawson, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant, Jeffrey Charles Waegner, and a codefendant, Michael Shane Floyd, were charged in the same information with manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a); count 1) and related offenses.[1] Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized at an Adelanto residence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.)
Defendant then pleaded no contest to one count of possession of narcotics with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11383, subd. (c)(1)), and admitted he had one prior conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (b). The other charges and allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to five years in prison.
On this appeal, defendant claims the trial court violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process by failing to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether the first of two search warrants was properly sealed and, if so, whether there was probable cause to issue the warrant. (People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 971-975 (Hobbs).) Defendant also challenges the denial of his suppression motion. We find no error, and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Suppression Hearing Evidence
Following an incident in which Floyd evaded San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy Robert McCoy in a vehicle pursuit, McCoy obtained a warrant for Floyd's arrest. McCoy then discovered that Floyd was a parolee at large, and received information from a confidential informant that Floyd was staying at an Adelanto residence. Based on this information, McCoy obtained a warrant (the first search warrant) to search for Floyd at the Adelanto residence. The first search warrant, supporting affidavit, and statement of probable cause were ordered sealed.
On March 7, 2003, at approximately 10:30 p.m., McCoy and several other law enforcement officers, including Detective Michael Blay, went to the Adelanto residence to serve the arrest warrant and first search warrant. McCoy knocked on the door of the residence and announced, â€
