Filed 8/1/13 P. v. Campbell CA2/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

DOMANICK CAMPBELL, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B243587 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. MA056068) 

THE COURT:* 

 Defendant and appellant Domanick Campbell (defendant) appeals his judgment of 

conviction of possession of a concealed dirk or dagger. His appointed counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues, but 

requesting a review of the trial court’s in camera hearing held after the court granted 

defendant’s Pitchess motion.1 On May 14, 2013, we notified defendant of his counsel’s 

brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any 

grounds or argument he would want to have considered. That time has elapsed and 

 * BOREN, P.J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J. 

1 See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess); Penal Code 

sections 832.7 and 832.8; Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045. 
2 

defendant has submitted no letter or brief. We have reviewed the entire record and 

finding no error or other arguable issues, we affirm the judgment. 

 Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed dirk or dagger on April 28, 

2012, in violation of Penal Code section 21310. The information further alleged pursuant 

to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(3), and the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, 

§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)), that defendant had been convicted in 

Oregon of a prior serious or violent felony. 

 Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Ovidio Alanis and Miguel Ruiz testified at 

defendant’s jury trial that while on patrol during the late evening of April 28, 2012, they 

conducted a traffic stop of the car in which defendant was a passenger. The deputies 

removed the three occupants of the car, and Deputy Alanis asked defendant whether he 

was carrying anything illegal. Defendant pointed to his waist and replied that he had a 

knife. Deputy Alanis lifted defendant’s shirt and saw an uncovered knife with an 

exposed five-inch blade, placed horizontally and held in place by defendant’s belt buckle. 

Defendant claimed he carried the knife for protection. 

 The jury found defendant guilty as charged, and also found true the allegation that 

defendant had been convicted in Oregon of a violation of Oregon Revised Statutes 

section 163.175. The trial court determined that the offense was assault with a deadly 

weapon, a serious or violent felony which qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes 

law. On August 24, 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to the high term of three 

years in prison due to his numerous adult convictions which were of increasing 

seriousness, and doubled the term to six years as a second strike. Defendant received a 

total of 237 days of presentence custody credit, and was ordered to provide a DNA 

sample and print impressions, and to pay mandatory fines and fees. Defendant filed a 

timely appeal from the judgment. 

We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing and find 

it sufficient to review the trial court’s discretion. We find no abuse of discretion in the 

trial court’s determination that other than one document pertaining to Deputy Alanis, 

there were no discoverable items in the records produced. 
3 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate 

counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We 

conclude that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure 

and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the 

judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; 

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.