P. v. Mancilla CA2/3

Filed 5/24/13 P. v. Mancilla CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B239566

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BA382452 & v. BA386152)

RICHARD MANCILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas Kevin Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Stacy S. Schwartz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant Richard Mancilla appeals from the judgment entered in superior court case No. BA382452 following his plea of no contest to unlawful firearm activity (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and from the judgment entered in superior court case No. BA386152 following his plea of no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) with an admission in each case that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (d)), following the denial of a suppression motion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) in each case. The court sentenced appellant to prison for 32 months in case No. BA386152, with a consecutive term of 16 months in case No. BA382452. We affirm the judgments. FACTUAL SUMMARY The record in case No. BA382452 reflects that on March 24, 2011, appellant possessed a firearm, i.e., a sawed-off rifle, having suffered a prior felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. The record in case No. BA386152 reflects that on June 30, 2011, appellant possessed a firearm, i.e., a handgun, having suffered a prior felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. ISSUES Appellant requests that this court conduct an independent review of (1) the in camera hearing on his Luttenberger motion and (2) the sealed transcript of the Pitchess hearing to determine whether additional information should have been disclosed. DISCUSSION 1. The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant’s Luttenberger Motion. a. Pertinent Facts. The nonconfidential record reflects as follows. On October 19, 2011, in superior court case No. BA382452, the court acknowledged receipt of a “motion . . . pursuant to [People v. Luttenberger].”1 The minute order for that date refers to the motion as a “motion for pretrial discovery of information about confidential informant.” (Capitalization omitted.) The trial court stated the motion was supported by a declaration