People v. Fletes CA2/7

Filed 11/19/20 P. v. Fletes CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B302032

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA477983) v.

RICHARD RANDALL FLETES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Renee F. Korn, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________

A jury convicted Richard Randall Fletes of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29900, subd. (a)(1))1 and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning a firearm (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)).2 Prior to trial Fletes admitted he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and had served two separate prison terms for felonies within the meaning of former section 667.5, subdivision (b). Fletes was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of seven years four months: the upper term of three years for possession of a firearm, doubled under the three strikes law, and a consecutive term of eight months for possession of ammunition, doubled under the three strikes law. The court did not impose a sentence for the prior prison term enhancements. On appeal Fletes asks that we review the in camera proceeding conducted by the trial court to determine whether it properly concluded there was no discoverable material to which he was legally entitled under Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We affirm with directions to the trial court to correct