People v. Dupree CA3

Filed 11/21/23 P. v. Dupree CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097816

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-180861)

v.

JAMES ROBERT DUPREE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Robert Dupree appeals from a judgment of convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia and being a felon in possession of ammunition. He challenges a pretrial ruling denying his motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant he claims was a material witness regarding defendant’s possession of the ammunition. He claims the trial court abused its discretion in upholding the prosecution’s assertion of an evidentiary privilege, thereby refusing to disclose the informant’s identity. We find no error.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We need only recount the facts supporting defendant’s convictions as necessary to provide context for the issues raised on appeal. It suffices to say that Detective Juan De Luna conducted a traffic stop of defendant. Detective De Luna searched defendant’s car and found two methamphetamine pipes and a total of 27 boxes of ammunition for an AK- 47 — a semiautomatic or automatic firearm. A search of defendant’s phone revealed text messages from “Tomies Patrick” (Tomies) and a contact known as “Traciy Placerville” (Traciy). The day before the traffic stop, Traciy sent messages to defendant that referenced boxes, “rounds,” and $3,300. On the day of the traffic stop, defendant sent Tomies a message that referenced “26,” which caught Detective De Luna’s attention because Detective De Luna found 26 boxes of ammunition in a bag in defendant’s trunk. These messages also referenced “wheels,” which Detective De Luna suspected was code for ammunition. Detective De Luna believed that there was a deal between defendant and Traciy involving the ammunition. Pretrial Proceedings At the preliminary hearing, Detective De Luna testified that he conducted the traffic stop of defendant because, in part, he knew defendant was on probation. Prior to trial, defendant moved to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, alleging that based on the prosecutor’s repeated objections pursuant to Evidence Code section 1040, and requests for an in camera hearing when defense counsel asked Detective De Luna why he stopped defendant’s car, there was an inference from Detective De Luna’s preliminary hearing testimony that he also relied on information from a confidential informant to justify the traffic stop. Defendant argued that if the confidential informant had knowledge about the ammunition and shared it with Detective De Luna, that confidential informant was a material witness and defendant was entitled to learn the