P. v. Evans CA1/3

Filed 3/1/16 P. v Evans CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A144171 BURL EVANS, (Contra Costa County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 51319698)

Defendant Burl Evans was arrested on narcotics charges following a search of his residence during which the police found, among other things, over 46 grams of heroin and approximately 24 grams of cocaine base. The evidence was seized pursuant to a search warrant based on information provided by a confidential informant. The magistrate sealed portions of the search warrant application in order to protect the identity of the confidential informant. Following an in camera hearing and review of the sealed portions of the search warrant application, the trial court refused to disclose the sealed material in order to protect the identity of the confidential informant and denied defendant’s motions to quash and traverse the search warrant. Defendant requests that we conduct an independent review of the sealed material, including the transcript of the in camera hearing held by the trial court, to determine whether the court erred in denying his motions to quash and traverse the search warrant and his related request to disclose the sealed portions of the warrant application. (People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs); People v. Luttenberger (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1 (Luttenberger).) Having conducted

1

the requested review, and finding no error in the trial court’s rulings, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 8, 2011, at 7:20 a.m., Detective Francisco Ramirez, accompanied by “well over 10 to 15” other officers, arrived at defendant’s two-story residence to execute a no-knock search warrant issued on probable cause to believe they would find, among other things, heroin, drug paraphernalia, and any personal property tending to show defendant’s possession or control of contraband including personal correspondence. Defendant was found in the upstairs master bedroom, placed in handcuffs, and escorted downstairs. Ultimately defendant was escorted outside and Detective Ramirez spoke briefly with the defendant. Returning to the house, Detective Ramirez and other officers searched the master bedroom. Located next to the head of the bed was a plastic-drawer organizer. Inside the organizer’s drawers, the officers found approximately 24 grams of cocaine base (in 99 baggies in two plastic pill bottles inside a black bag), over 46 grams of heroin (in a knot- tied plastic bag wrapped in some paper), pay owe sheets, and unopened mail addressed to defendant at the residence. Elsewhere in the bedroom, the officers found an open box of fold-top clear plastic baggies, additional pay owe sheets, a digital scale, and additional mail addressed to defendant at the residence. The Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an information charging that on or about September 8, 2011, defendant possessed cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and possessed heroin for sale with a related allegation that the heroin weighed “14.25 grams or more” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; Pen. Code, § 1203.07, subd. (a)(1)). The information also alleged that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions under the Three Strikes law and had two prior felony convictions rendering him ineligible for probation absent unusual circumstances. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 1203, subd. (e)(4).)