People v. Seidenfaden CA3

Filed 6/16/14 P. v. Seidenfaden CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte)

THE PEOPLE, C073002

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM033834)

v.

CHARLES GERARD SEIDENFADEN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Charles Gerard Seidenfaden, Jr., guilty of furnishing marijuana to a minor. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (b).) The jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared on a count of cultivating marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358.) Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 30 days of incarceration with credit for one day. On appeal, defendant asks this court to review the sealed in camera proceedings and search warrant affidavit to determine whether the trial court erred in sealing the affidavit and in denying defendant’s motion to traverse and quash the warrant. We affirm.

1

FACTS1 In March 2010, 17-year-old S.K. lived in Oroville with her mother, her older brother, and defendant, who was her mother’s boyfriend. Defendant and S.K.’s mother started living together when S.K. was in elementary school. Thus, defendant was aware of S.K.’s age and birthday. S.K. testified that she first used marijuana in late 2009 when defendant offered it to her. Sometime between January and March of 2010, defendant again provided marijuana to S.K. He simply handed her the marijuana, and he was aware that she was a minor when he did so. A search warrant was executed at S.K.’s residence on the morning of March 25, 2010. Officers discovered that the garage had been converted into a marijuana “grow room” and that it contained five marijuana plants. Harvested marijuana was found throughout the house, including S.K.’s bedroom. An officer estimated that there was enough harvested marijuana to last for three or four months or until the marijuana under cultivation could be harvested. After an advisement and waiver of his constitutional rights, defendant spoke with one of the searching officers. Defendant never said anything to indicate that he thought S.K. was an adult. He explained that he would prefer that S.K. and her friends smoke marijuana at the residence where he could monitor their use. Defendant admitted that all of the marijuana in the house belonged to him. DISCUSSION Independent Review of In Camera Proceedings Citing People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs) and its antecedents, defendant asks this court to “independently review the sealed in camera proceedings and