People v. Greene CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Aug 27, 2020 No. B299882Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for firearm and drug offenses, finding no merit in his claims regarding the legality of the search warrant or the denial of his motion to disclose a confidential informant's identity.

Issues

Whether the search of the defendant's apartment was conducted without a warrant.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record belies Greene’s claims. At trial, three officers testified the reason they were at the apartment was to serve a search warrant.”

“Greene has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility the informant could offer testimony that might result in exoneration, nor has he shown a reasonable possibility the nondisclosure of the informant’s identity rendered his trial unfair.”

Filed 8/17/20 P. v. Greene CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B299882

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA098094 v.

RODERICK D. GREENE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Upinder S. Karla, Judge. Affirmed. Linda L. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant and appellant Roderick Greene with possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count one); possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count two); and possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count three). The information further alleged Greene was personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (c)) in the commission of count two, and that he sustained two prior prison term convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). A jury found Greene guilty of all counts and found true the enhancement attached to count two. The prosecution informed the court it would not proceed on the prior prison term allegations. The court sentenced Greene to nine years in state prison, consisting of an upper four-year term on count two and an upper five-year term for the firearm enhancement attached to that count. The court sentenced him to upper terms of three years on count one and four years on count three, but stayed sentencing on those counts under section 654. Greene filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On March 9, 2020, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We informed Greene that he could personally submit any

People v. Greene CA2/4

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B299882

RODERICK D. GREENE,

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

MANELLA, P.J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief