Filed 4/4/18 P. v. Neat CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMIN COREY NEAT,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069332

(Super.Ct.No. FVI17001387)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Charles J. Umeda, Judge. Affirmed.
David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Jamin Corey Neat, pled no contest to the attempted illegal transfer of a firearm. (Count 3; Pen. Code, §§ 664, 27500.) The court sentenced defendant to two years of imprisonment and awarded defendant 308 days of custody credit.
After defendant’s counsel and counsel from Appellate Defenders, Inc. filed notices of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence based on the court’s finding that defendant had no standing to challenge the detention of a third party; (2) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence based on the court’s finding that defendant’s telephonic communications were within the scope of a previously issued wiretap warrant of a third party; and (3) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant, whose information supported the affidavit in support of the warrant. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2016, an officer submitted an affidavit in support of an order authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications, a pen register trap and trace device, and GPS tracking cellular site data made from and to a target telephone number. The officer identified the target of the warrant as Joshua Padilla; the target phone number was subscribed to by Andrew Martinez, but Padilla primarily used the phone. The court issued an order authorizing the request on the same day. The court sealed the portion of the affidavit identifying a confidential informant.
On December 13, 2016, an officer surveilling Padilla’s residence witnessed two men enter the home, come out with a duffle bag, place it in the trunk of their car, and drive off. Another officer pulled over the vehicle for speeding; the officer smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the car. During a search of the vehicle, the officers found 11 plastic bags of marijuana and $1,000.
On December 14, 2016, an officer conducting surveillance of defendant’s residence observed Padilla arrive. On December 19, 2016, an officer conducted a traffic stop of Albert Ramirez. The officer found marijuana in plain view inside the vehicle. During a search of the vehicle, the officer found a clear plastic bag containing a powdery substance which tested positive for cocaine. Ramirez voluntarily gave the officer Ramirez’s cell phone and pass code, on which the officer found text messages between Ramirez and someone named “Shadow,” who was trying to sell Ramirez a firearm; the text conversation included a picture of the firearm, a High-Point nine-millimeter Luger. “Shadow” was defendant’s moniker.
Officers had been monitoring text messages and phone calls in December 2016 between Padilla and defendant regarding money owed Padilla by defendant and the potential sale of a High-Point nine-millimeter firearm by defendant to Padilla. Defendant owed Padilla $1,240. Padilla texted that he would take $200 off what defendant owed him in exchange for the firearm. Padilla texted that “he needed the firearm because the little bros needed it because they were having problems on the street with local gangs.” Another officer twice observed Padilla drive to defendant’s residence.
On December 20, 2016, officers conducted a search of defendant’s home pursuant to a warrant. Officers found items consistent with marijuana sales, including $290 in cash, packaged bags of marijuana, edible marijuana, digital scales, and packaging materials. During the search, defendant told one officer “that he was using his phone to send text messages regarding a gun that was not his and was not at the house.” He told another officer he had texted the photograph of the firearm. An officer opined that, based on the facts of the case, the attempted sale of the gun was for the benefit of the Below Underground gang, of which Padilla was a member.
On June 13, 2017, the People charged defendant by felony information with conspiracy to sell cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana (count 1; Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, 11379, 11360) and conspiracy to illegally sell a firearm (count 2; Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 29800). The People additionally alleged defendant had committed both offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) Finally, the People alleged defendant had suffered from two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
On August 11, 2017, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the cell phone, during execution of the search warrant of his home, and of his statements made during the search. On the same date, defendant filed motions to receive an unredacted copy of the affidavit in support of the initial warrant and to dismiss the case pursuant to Penal Code section 995.
On September 11, 2017, the court denied the Penal Code section 995 motion. On October 6, 2017, the court conducted an in camera hearing regarding the motion to unseal the redacted affidavit in support of the search warrant. The court found the one redacted sentence in the affidavit in support of the search warrant needed to remain redacted to protect the identity of the confidential informant.
On October 12, 2017, defendant entered a plea of no contest to an added count 3 charge of attempted illegal transfer of a firearm. (Count 3; Pen. Code, §§ 664, 27500, 27590, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant additionally admitted a prior strike conviction. In return, pursuant to the plea agreement, the remaining counts and allegations were dismissed; the court sentenced defendant, pursuant to the plea agreement, to two years of imprisonment with 308 days of custody credit.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
J.


We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.

FIELDS
J.