People v. Nichols CA3

Filed 9/8/14 P. v. Nichols CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Plumas) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075031

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13-00188)

v.

GERALD EDMUND NICHOLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following the trial court’s denial of his motions to traverse and quash the search warrant and suppress evidence, a jury found defendant Gerald Edmund Nichols guilty on two counts of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and failing to appear while out on bail (Pen. Code, § 1320.5). The jury also found true allegations that defendant committed certain of his crimes while out on bail or on his own recognizance. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years eight months in state prison.

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2013, a trial court judge signed a warrant commanding the search of defendant’s residence and the persons found therein for drugs and evidence related to the sale of drugs. The judge also ordered part of the search warrant affidavit sealed to protect the identity of one or more confidential informants. Police then searched the residence and grounds and found 20 grams of methamphetamine, five fentanyl patches, five cell phones, a computer monitor connected to a video and audio surveillance system, a gram scale, “dozens” of unused two-inch by two-inch baggies, and a police scanner.

Before proceeding to trial, 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 after reviewing the “sealed information for any inconsistencies or any insufficiencies,” the trial court found, “there is no reasonable probability that . . . defendant would prevail on the motion to traverse”; and (3) denied the motion to quash the warrant because there was probable cause to search defendant’s residence.