People v. Christman CA2/6

Filed 7/2/14 P. v. Christman CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B252792 (Super. Ct. No. 2013024979) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

KEITH HAROLD CHRISTMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Keith Harold Christman appeals a judgment entered following his guilty plea to transportation of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In late July 2013, Ventura County Sheriff's Narcotics Detective Shane Matthews used a confidential informant to execute a "controlled-buy" of methamphetamine from Christman. Matthews monitored the telephone conversation between the informant and Christman as they arranged the methamphetamine purchase. The informant wore a wireless transmitter during the exchange conducted in a grocery store parking lot. Matthews monitored that conversation as well, and Sheriff's Deputy Alvarez observed the drug transaction ("an exchange at waist level and then the informant walked away"). The deputies conducted a controlled-buy protocol that included searching the informant before the transaction and receiving a

methamphetamine bindle from him immediately following the transaction. They did not arrest Christman immediately following the drug transaction nor did they seek an arrest warrant. In the afternoon of August 8, 2013, Matthews and other deputies saw Christman in the same grocery store parking lot and arrested him. During a search incidental to arrest, deputies found three packages of methamphetamine, amounting to 12.3 grams, on Christman and his bicycle. Following advisement of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444, Christman admitted that he purchased the methamphetamine earlier that day, and planned to give a portion of it to "people [who] went in on it with [him]." On September 9, 2013, Christman was charged with transportation of methamphetamine, based upon the 12.3 grams of methamphetamine found when he was arrested. He was not charged with possession or sale of methamphetamine based upon the drug transaction with the confidential informant. Following Christman's arraignment, he filed a motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine and his admissions to Matthews, and a discovery motion. In part, Christman sought disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant in order to challenge probable cause for the arrest and search. After an evidentiary hearing and argument by the parties, the trial court denied the motion. The trial judge stated: "[T]he officers are certainly in plain view to witness what they believe to be a narcotics transaction, the circumstances are sufficiently reliable . . . to give them probable cause, . . . the informant was searched and no drugs were found [before the transaction]. [Alvarez] witnessed this exchange and then within moments drugs are found on [the informant] or in his possession. Certainly gives [the officers] probable cause to believe that [Christman] sold drugs to the informant on that occasion." The trial judge also decided that the confidential informant was not a material witness regarding probable cause given Alvarez's observation of the exchange.