People v. Lopez CA1/5

Filed 12/13/13 P. v. Lopez CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137165 v. ALVARO HUMBERTO LOPEZ, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC074925) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Alvaro Humberto Lopez appeals following his conviction of various offenses, including narcotics, firearm, and gang participation charges. He requests that we conduct an independent review of the in camera hearing held pursuant to People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs). The People agree independent review is appropriate. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2012, appellant was charged by amended information with possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count one); possession of a dirk or dagger (former Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a); count two); possession of a firearm by a felon (former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count three); participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); count four); possession of ammunition by a felon (former Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1); count five); possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count six); and misdemeanor possession of

1

narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count seven). The information also included street gang, firearm, and prior conviction allegations. The trial court dismissed count two, a jury found appellant guilty on the remaining counts and found true the enhancement allegations attached to counts one and three, and the trial court found true the allegations regarding priors. The court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 14 years. This appeal followed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 12, 2011, appellant was under surveillance by local and federal agents. Officers observed him enter a taxi cab, stopped the cab, and searched appellant pursuant to a search warrant. Appellant had a switchblade knife in his pocket and baggies of heroin in a backpack. Officers obtained a search warrant for appellant’s apartment. They found plastic baggies containing heroin and cocaine, a digital scale and a box of plastic baggies, and a revolver and ammunition. DISCUSSION Appellant does not contend there was error at trial or sentencing. Instead, appellant requests that this court review the sealed portion of an attachment to the affidavit submitted in support of a May 3, 2011 search warrant, to determine whether the trial court erred in concluding the affidavit established probable cause. He also requests that this court review whether the trial court erred in denying his request to unseal the sealed portions of the attachment and his motion to quash and traverse the warrant. This court has reviewed the sealed, unredacted attachment to the affidavit, as well as the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing held pursuant to Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th 948. The trial court did not err. The May 3, 2011 warrant authorized the search of appellant, a specified residence, and any vehicle connected to appellant or the specified residence. Issuance of the warrant was based on an affidavit of probable cause provided by Police Sergeant Nicholas Chorley. The most probative information was contained in an attached “Confidential Attachment #1” (Attachment), which was ordered sealed. In March 2012,