People v. Jefferson CA3

Filed 7/3/14 P. v. Jefferson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C071936

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F02786)

LEROY JEFFERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following the trial court’s denial of his motions to traverse and quash the search warrant in this case, defendant Leroy Jefferson pled no contest to possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)), and felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted several sentencing enhancements, including being armed with a firearm during the commission of his crimes (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)) and being previously convicted of a strike offense (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12). On appeal from the resulting 11-year prison term, defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing a portion of the search warrant affidavit to remain sealed and in denying his motions to traverse and quash the search warrant. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2011, a magistrate signed a warrant authorizing the search of two residential premises, their surrounding areas and out buildings, and any vehicles and other property on the premises owned by defendant and another individual. The warrant also authorized the search of several vehicles, three of which were registered to defendant. Law enforcement officers were directed to search for drugs, as well as indicia of drug manufacturing and sales. The magistrate also ordered part of the search warrant affidavit sealed to protect the identity of one or more confidential informants. Before pleading no contest, defendant brought motions, following the procedure set forth in People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs), to have the trial court conduct an in camera review of the sealed material to determine whether the sealing was proper and to traverse and quash the warrant. The trial court did so and (1) found the affidavit was properly sealed, (2) denied the motion to traverse the warrant because “the public and sealed portions of the affidavit do not support any charges of material misrepresentation,” and (3) denied the motion to quash the warrant “based on [the court’s] review of all the relevant materials, that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant in question.” DISCUSSION Under Hobbs, “[o]n a properly noticed motion by the defense seeking to quash or traverse [a] search warrant” where any portion or all of the search warrant affidavit has been sealed, “the lower court should conduct an in camera hearing . . . . It must first be determined whether sufficient grounds exist for maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity. It should then be determined whether the entirety of the affidavit or any major portion thereof is properly sealed, i.e., whether the extent of the sealing is necessary to avoid revealing the informant’s identity.” (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 972.)