P. v. Vincent CA3

Filed 7/24/13 P. v. Vincent CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072395

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF1100165)

v.

DANIEL JAMES VINCENT,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Daniel James Vincent of possession of methamphetamine (counts 1 & 4; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), possession of paraphernalia (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11364), carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (counts 3 & 5; Pen. Code, § 21310 [formerly Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)]), and resisting or obstructing a peace officer (count 6; Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and the trial court found that he committed the offense charged in count 4 while released from custody on bail or on his own recognizance.

1

Sentenced to a term in state prison, defendant contends that the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)) after the court’s in camera review deprived defendant of discovery information to which he was entitled. The People agree that we should conduct an independent review of the in camera hearing to determine whether the court abused its discretion. Having done so, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion or deprive defendant of discovery information to which he was entitled when it ordered the disclosure of materials as to two of the four law enforcement officers named in the motion. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On the evening of March 2, 2011, Plumas County Sheriff’s Deputy Robert Hammill saw defendant, whom he recognized, near Chester Elementary School. Defendant approached Deputy Hammill’s patrol car, then admitted that he had used methamphetamine a week before and that he possessed a knife. As Deputy Hammill walked toward defendant to conduct a search, he saw a film container in defendant’s hand. Asked what it contained, defendant said “Meth.” Deputy Hammill opened the container and saw crystalline rocks inside, packaged in two baggies. On searching defendant, Deputy Hammill found a large kitchen knife with an eight-inch blade and a glass smoking pipe in the front pocket of defendant’s sweatshirt. Plumas County Sheriff’s Detective Michael Smith later conducted a presumptive test on the substances in the baggies and found that both baggies contained usable amounts of methamphetamine. On September 30, 2011, after defendant failed to appear in court, a warrant was issued for his arrest. On December 9, 2011, Detective Smith and Plumas County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Kincaid, who had been looking for defendant to serve the arrest warrant, saw