People v. Asaro CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD239220
- Trial judge
- Laura Halgren
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), O'Rourke, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's motions to allow counsel to attend an in camera hearing, unseal a portion of a search warrant affidavit, and traverse the warrant. The Court of Appeal reviewed the sealed transcript and affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's rulings.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to allow defense counsel to attend in camera hearing or appoint independent counsel“The trial court denied defendant Anthony Asaro's motion to allow defense counsel to attend an in camera hearing regarding the sufficiency of an affidavit to support a search warrant, or appoint independent counsel to attend the hearing.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion does not explicitly state a standard of review for this specific procedural ruling, nor does it provide a separate analysis for it, focusing instead on the ultimate denial of the traverse motion. |
Denial of motion to unseal sealed portion of affidavit and traverse the warrant“Following the in camera hearing, the court denied Asaro's motions to unseal the sealed portion of the affidavit and traverse the warrant.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The court states it reviewed the sealed transcript and found 'no error' based on People v. Hobbs, which governs the standard for reviewing search warrant denials (abuse of discretion). |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 — Establishes the standard of review and framework for evaluating the sufficiency of an affidavit supporting a search warrant and the propriety of denying a motion to traverse.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is extremely brief and conclusory, stating only that the court reviewed the sealed transcript and found no error without detailing the specific facts or legal analysis applied to the sealed affidavit. It relies on a single citation to People v. Hobbs to support the conclusion of no error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Asaro's request that defense counsel or independent counsel attend the in camera Hobbs hearing on the sealed search warrant affidavit, and after that hearing denied his motions to unseal the affidavit and traverse the warrant; Asaro then pleaded guilty to drug sale and transportation counts and received a stipulated 12-year-four-month term. On appeal he asked only that the Court of Appeal review the sealed transcript, the Attorney General conceded review was appropriate, and the court reviewed it under People v. Hobbs, found no error, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motions to unseal the sealed portion of the search warrant affidavit and to traverse the warrant following an in camera Hobbs hearing“He asks this court to review the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing to determine whether the court properly denied his motions to unseal the affidavit and traverse the warrant. Respondent concedes we should conduct the review. We have done so and find no error.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Under Hobbs the reviewing court independently examines the sealed affidavit and in camera transcript to determine whether the sealing was justified and whether the trial court correctly rejected the unsealing and traversal motions; the opinion states it performed that review and found no error, which is the procedure Hobbs prescribes. The opinion does not state the standard of review, and the sealed materials are not reproduced, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion alone, but nothing in it suggests a legal misstep. |
Denial of motion to allow defense counsel to attend the in camera hearing or to appoint independent counsel to attend“The trial court denied defendant Anthony Asaro's motion to allow defense counsel to attend an in camera hearing regarding the sufficiency of an affidavit to support a search warrant, or appoint independent counsel to attend the hearing.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The opinion recites this ruling but Asaro did not separately challenge it on appeal; he asked only for review of the sealed transcript. Hobbs itself contemplates that the in camera hearing proceeds without defense counsel present, with the court acting to protect the defendant's interests, so the trial court's ruling is consistent with controlling authority. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 — When a search warrant affidavit is sealed to protect a confidential informant, the trial court conducts an in camera review (without defense counsel) to determine whether sealing is justified and whether the defendant's motions to unseal, traverse, or quash should be granted, and the appellate court reviews the sealed record to confirm the trial court's rulings.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion does exactly what Hobbs requires on appeal: it reviews the sealed transcript and affidavit and reports that the trial court's denial of the unsealing and traversal motions was proper. It is terse and does not describe the standard of review or the contents of the sealed record, but given the confidentiality concerns and the limited issue raised, the reasoning is adequate and rests on the right authority.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 1/7/14 P. v. Asaro CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063557
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD239220)
ANTHONY ASARO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Adrianne S. Denault, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The trial court denied defendant Anthony Asaro's motion to allow defense counsel to attend an in camera hearing regarding the sufficiency of an affidavit to support a search warrant, or appoint independent counsel to attend the hearing. Following the in camera hearing, the court denied Asaro's motions to unseal the sealed portion of the affidavit and traverse the warrant. Asaro entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11351) with two prior convictions pursuant to section 11379 (§ 11370.2, subd. (a); count 2), possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378; count 4), transporting morphine (§ 11352, subd. (a); count 7) and possessing oxycodone for sale (§ 11351; count 9). The court sentenced him to a stipulated term of 12 years four months in local custody: the three-year middle term on count 4, a consecutive one-year term (one-third the middle term) plus three years for each enhancement on count 2, a consecutive one-year term (one-third the middle term) on count 9 and a consecutive term of one year four months (one-third the middle term) on count 7. Asaro appeals. He asks this court to review the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing to determine whether the court properly denied his motions to unseal the affidavit and traverse the warrant. Respondent concedes we should conduct the review. We have done so and find no error. (People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 971-975.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. 2 MCDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Hobbs S023739 · 1994-06-06