Filed 10/27/15 P. v. Martinez CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B258719

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA128843)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ricardo 

R. Ocampo and Laura R. Walton, Judges. Affirmed.

Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________
2

On August 8, 2013, Ricardo Martinez was charged in an information with 

possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, count 1),

1

possession of methamphetamine with a firearm (§ 11370.1, subd. (a), count 2), 

possession for sale of cocaine (§ 11351, count 3), possession for sale of heroin (§ 11351, 

count 4), possession for sale of marijuana (§ 11359, count 5), unlawful possession of 

ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 7) and possession of a firearm by a 

felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1), counts 6, 8, 9, & 10). The information specially 

alleged as to count 1, the methamphetamine exceeded 1 kilogram by weight within the 

meaning of section 11370.4, subdivision (a), and as to counts 1, 3, 4, and 5, Martinez had 

suffered three prior convictions within the meaning of section 11370.2, subdivision (a). 

Martinez pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations. 

On November 6, 2013, Martinez filed a motion to unseal and quash the search 

warrant and to suppress evidence pursuant to People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948. The 

trial court denied the motion on December 6, 2013 following an in camera hearing with 

the investigating officer. On January 30, 2014, the court provided Martinez with a 

redacted copy of the affidavit and ordered it filed under seal.

Pursuant to an agreement negotiated on July 8, 2014, Martinez pleaded no contest 

to possession of methamphetamine in excess of one kilogram, possession of 

methamphetamine with a firearm, possession of heroin, and one count of possession of a 

firearm by a felon and admitted having suffered two prior convictions within the meaning 

of section 11370.2.

2 At the time he entered his plea, Martinez was advised of his 

constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of the plea, which he stated he 

understood. Defense counsel joined in the waivers of Martinez’s constitutional rights. 

The trial court expressly found Martinez’s waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing and 

intelligent. 

 

1 Statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code, unless otherwise indicated.

. 

2 Martinez also admitted the third section 11370.2 allegation, which the trial court 

then dismissed in the interest of justice. 
3

The trial court sentenced Martinez in accordance with the plea agreement to an 

aggregate state prison term of 14 years 4 months. The court awarded Martinez 760 days 

of presentence custody credit and imposed statutory fines, fees and assessments. The 

remaining counts were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. Martinez filed a timely 

notice of appeal challenging the denial of the suppression motion.

We appointed counsel to represent Martinez on appeal. After examination of the 

record, counsel filed an opening brief, raising no issues, but requesting that we 

independently review the transcript of the in camera hearing to determine whether the 

trial court erred when it refused to order full disclosure of the sealed affidavit. 

On May 27, 2015, we advised Martinez he had 30 days within which to submit 

any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response. 

Because the appellate record contained only a redacted copy of the sealed 

affidavit, we requested the original search warrant and supporting affidavit from the 

superior court, which it provided on September 28, 2015. After reviewing the entire 

record, including the original search warrant, unredacted supporting affidavit, and the

sealed transcript of the in camera hearing, we find the trial court properly sealed portions 

of the warrant affidavit to protect the informant’s identity. (People v. Hobbs, supra, 7 

Cal.4th at p. 976.) We are satisfied Martinez’s appellate attorney has complied fully with 

the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 

U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 

106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

ZELON, J. 

We concur: 

PERLUSS, P. J. SEGAL, J.