People v. Baptiste CA3

Filed 5/1/21 P. v. Baptiste CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091255

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CF03080)

v.

ARMAND WILLIAM BAPTISTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a bench trial, the court found defendant Armand William Baptiste guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale and found true a related special allegation. The court granted defendant a three-year term of formal probation. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to inquire into defense counsel’s declared conflict of interest and, as a result, violated his right to effective assistance of counsel. Given the confused record presented by this case, we ordered the parties to supplementally brief certain happenings in the trial court. After a thorough review of the

1

briefing and record, we conclude that defendant has not shown prejudicial error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During the execution of a search warrant at a residence, law enforcement saw defendant drop to the ground behind some potted plants in the yard. Law enforcement detained defendant and found a plastic bag containing 32.5 grams of methamphetamine near one of the potted plants. Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health. & Saf. Code, § 11378.) It was further alleged that defendant possessed for sale and sold a substance containing 28.5 grams or more of methamphetamine and 57 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. (Pen. Code, § 1203.073, subd. (b)(2).) On the first day of trial, counsel for defendant, Nicole Diamond, informed the court that, after reviewing body camera footage from the arrest, “it is [defendant]’s request that he would like to challenge the search warrant.” The search warrant included sealed portions. Diamond continued: “Now, if that is the case, I would have to declare a conflict in the matter.” Diamond did not disclose any basis for the conflict; however, as the parties conceded in supplemental briefing, she was the deputy district attorney at defendant’s arraignment. The prosecutor opposed any delay, noting that the case had been set for jury trial multiple times, delayed for over a year, and had gone through multiple defense attorneys. The trial court responded: “Well, it’s a discovery issue. [¶] Is that right, Ms. Diamond, it’s a discovery issue?” Diamond confirmed the trial court’s statement, but still did not say anything about the basis for her conflict. The parties confirmed that the relevant body camera footage had been discovered and provided to defendant’s attorneys. Diamond explained that defendant “would like an attorney to challenge the warrant and what is in the warrant and potential issues of individuals found in the home in relation to the warrant and their possible involvement,