P. v. Pulliam CA2/5

Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Pulliam CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B244795

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA097244) v.

DOUGLAS WADE PULLIAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George Genesta, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, 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, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Defendant and appellant Douglas Wade Pulliam was charged in counts 1 and 2 with possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (b).)1 Defendant‟s motion to traverse the search warrant that led to the discovery of the weapons was denied.2 Defendant pled no contest to count 1, count 2 was dismissed, and defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of three years. We affirm.

FACTS3

On November 3, 2011, Pomona Police Department Officer Karen Callaghan interviewed Misty Pulliam4 concerning a threatening phone call received that day. Misty provided Officer Callaghan with a recording of the call, in which a male caller said, “Soon soon soon you‟re dead. Soon you‟re dead.” The caller did not identify himself. Misty identified the caller to Officer Callaghan as defendant, who was her estranged husband. Officer Callaghan did not independently verify Misty‟s claim. Misty stated that she saw the caller‟s phone number on her caller ID. She told Officer Callaghan the call was made from a phone with a 760 area code, and that defendant‟s son possessed a phone with the same area code. Officer Callaghan did not request the full phone number of the threatening caller or defendant‟s son‟s phone number. Misty explained that she and defendant were involved in a contentious divorce and custody dispute, and that defendant had recently been informed he would be dropped from her insurance coverage. Approximately one year before the call, when Misty was