People v. Moore CA5

Filed 10/21/14 P. v. Moore CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F067118 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF139573B) v.

BRYSON DUPREE MOORE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jerold L. Turner, Judge. Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION On December 1, 2011, appellant was arrested after attempting to discard a packet of methamphetamine in the presence of two police officers. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of transporting methamphetamine (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), possessing methamphetamine for sale (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and willfully, unlawfully, and actively participating in a criminal street gang (count 3; Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)). Enhancement allegations attached to counts 1 and 2 as offenses committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang and with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The information also alleged that appellant had six prior felony convictions, but the trial court struck five of the six prior convictions for sentencing purposes. Appellant was sentenced to a total of 17 years in prison, and the trial court imposed additional fines and fees. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s Pitchess motion to discover certain files within the personnel files of his arresting officers, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction for active gang participation. Neither of these arguments is persuasive and the judgment will be affirmed. FACTS On December 1, 2011, Bakersfield Police Department Officers Matthew Gregory and Andrew Ferguson observed a red vehicle pull up to a residence, and two men exit the vehicle. Gregory recognized one of the men as appellant whom he knew to be a parolee and member of the East Side Crips street gang. The officers approached the two men and, as they did so, appellant discarded an object into the grass. Following Gregory’s observation, the officers detained appellant and the other man, later identified as Vernon Mixon. Gregory retrieved the discarded package and saw