(Super. Ct. No. SF110799A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury convicted defendant Ivy James Magee of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and being a felon in possession of a gun and ammunition (Pen. Code, §§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); 12316, subd. (b)(1)), and also sustained allegations that defendant was armed (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)) and had suffered a prior drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)). On August 10, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total of eight years in state prison, awarding conduct credit of 100 days for defendant's 201 days of presentence custody.*fn1
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant, who provided some of the particulars in support of the search warrant of defendant's residence. He also asserts the record reflects prosecutorial misconduct regarding the reasonable doubt standard, to which his trial attorney did not effectively respond.
As we will explain, there was no error in the denial of the motion to compel. Further, although various comments made by the People to the jury concerning reasonable doubt were ill-advised, there was no prejudicial misconduct and no error.
On our own motion, we find that defendant is entitled to additional conduct credit for his time in presentence custody. We affirm the judgment as modified.
FACTUAL*fn2 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Before trial, defendant moved to compel disclosure of the confidential informant as a participant or material witness. He based the motion solely on the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant of his residence, because it showed the informant purchased the contraband from a person other than defendant. The pertinent details from the affidavit follow.
Citizens had reported suspicious activity at a Stockton address to community housing officers, who had also observed "short stay traffic" (people coming and going) at the apartment's doorway. They relayed this information to the detective applying for the search warrant, who determined that ...