1

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

v.

PAUL RUDY PUGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

E061035

(Super.Ct.No. SWF1202868)

OPINION

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 
2

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 
3

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.