People v. Moreno CA6

Filed 3/13/14 P. v. Moreno CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039643 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F20483)

v.

ESTEBAN PANTOJA MORENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Esteban Pantoja Moreno appeals a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to a count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), a count of possession of cocaine (id., § 11350), and a count of resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)).1 Defendant also admitted he had a prior strike conviction. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of two years, eight months in prison. On appeal, defendant requests that we conduct an independent review of the sealed search warrant affidavit and the transcript of the in camera hearing to determine if the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress or to disclose more of the sealed search warrant affidavit. Defendant further argues that the judgment should be modified to reflect an $840 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)). Lastly, defendant contends that the trial court erred in limiting his postsentence conduct credit to 15 percent under section 2933.1. We modify the judgment and affirm. 1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Since defendant pleaded no contest to the offenses, we derive our facts from the probation report, which was based on a report prepared by the Watsonville Police Department. On February 22, 2011, officers went to defendant’s residence to serve a search warrant. After observing defendant enter his truck, officers attempted to conduct a traffic stop but defendant did not yield. Eventually, defendant pulled over but accelerated away after officers instructed him to turn off his truck. After a chase, defendant got out of the truck and ran down several streets, through yards and fences. A perimeter was set up and defendant was taken into custody. Officers found 4.2 grams of methamphetamine in defendant’s boot and piles of methamphetamine in several of the yards close to where he was arrested. Defendant had $1,713 in cash in his wallet, which officers concluded was the result of drug sales. Officers searched defendant’s home and found an 8.2 gram bag of cocaine, a 1.5 gram bag of cocaine, a zip lock bag containing marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a .22-caliber rifle. On June 13, 2011, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging defendant with a count of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11378, count 2), possession of cocaine for sale (id., § 11350, count 3), possession of ammunition by a felon (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1), now § 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 4), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a), count 5). The information alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 on October 11, 2011. Defendant also sought to unseal portions of the sealed search warrant affidavit and to quash and traverse the warrant. After an in camera hearing, the court granted defendant’s motion in part and disclosed a portion of the sealed search warrant