Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Carol Lynette Reedom

May 17, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
CAROL LYNETTE REEDOM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 09F3609)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease, Acting P. J.

P. v. Reedom

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

After the trial court denied defendant Carol Lynette Reedom's motion to suppress evidence and to quash/traverse a search warrant, she pled guilty to possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and admitted a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to a stipulated seven-year prison term.*fn1

On appeal, defendant asks this court to independently examine the sealed portion of the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant to assess whether the trial court erred in sealing a portion of the affidavit and concluding that probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant. Defendant also contends she is entitled to receive two days of conduct credits under Penal Code section 4019.

We conclude that the trial court did not err in sealing a portion of the affidavit in support of the search warrant or in concluding that the warrant was based on probable cause. We shall order the abstract of judgment corrected to (1) provide defendant with additional conduct credits under Penal Code sections 4019 and 2933, and (2) reflect that defendant was convicted of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5.

BACKGROUND

At the hearing in which defendant pled guilty, the parties stipulated that the factual basis for the plea was set forth in Shasta Interagency Narcotics Task Force investigation report No. SH-2009-27. That report is not included in the record on appeal. Accordingly, we draw the following facts from the return of search warrant, which lists items seized in defendant's residence and business on March 23, 2009. In executing the search warrant, authorities found 28.8 grams gross field weight of cocaine base, 14 individually wrapped bindles of cocaine with a combined weight of 8 grams, two digital scales, packaging materials, and .38 caliber ammunition.

DISCUSSION

I

Whether Probable Cause Existed for Issuance of the Search Warrant

Defendant contends we must examine the sealed portion of the search warrant affidavit to determine whether the warrant was based on probable cause to believe defendant had narcotics in her residence, vehicles, and business location. The Attorney General agrees that we may examine the sealed record as requested by defendant. We conclude that the public and sealed portions of the affidavit in support of the search warrant, when considered as a whole, established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.

A

In the public portion of the search warrant affidavit, Redding Police Officer Brad LaCroix declared that he had probable cause to believe that he would find cocaine in defendant's residence, vehicles, and place of business. The affidavit contained descriptions of defendant's residence, vehicles, and place of business, along with an explanation of how the officer located each through checking utility accounts, DMV records, and business licenses. In ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.