Filed 9/9/15 P. v. Puga CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061035
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1202868)
PAUL RUDY PUGA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge.
Affirmed.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Stephanie H.
Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Paul Puga is serving a 12-year prison term after a jury found him guilty
of possessing for sale and transporting methamphetamine. Defendant admitted to having
1
four prior strike convictions and three prior prison terms. In this appeal, defendant asks
this court to review an in camera proceeding concerning the disclosure of the identity of
a confidential informant. We review the in camera proceeding and conclude that the trial
court did not err in refusing to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On June 26, 2013, sheriff’s deputies pulled over defendant in his vehicle after
seeing him talk on his cellular telephone while driving. The deputies had been
surveilling defendant’s residence. Defendant had $120 in his wallet, $1,000 in his socks,
and a baggie containing 8.2 grams of methamphetamine in his rectum.
On December 2, 2013, the People filed an amended information charging
defendant with possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and
transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379). The People alleged
defendant had three prison term priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and four strike
priors (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)).
On March 11, 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of both counts. Also on that
date defendant admitted each of the allegations. On April 22, 2014, the trial court
sentenced defendant to 12 years in prison.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Before trial, defendant filed a motion to compel disclosure of the identity of a
confidential informant. In response, the People asked for an in camera review of the
evidence. Based on these requests, the trial court found “there might be exculpatory
2
evidence” and agreed to an in camera review. The court held the in camera review on
December 2, 3 and 19, 2013, the record of which was sealed. After the hearing, the court
denied the motion to disclose “for reasons I stated in the closed hearing.”
We have examined the transcript of that hearing and conclude that the trial court
did not err in refusing to order that the identity of the informant be disclosed. (People v.
Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1245, 1246 [overruled on other grounds in People v.
Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 835].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PULISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.
3