People v. Hill
| Decision Date | 15 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | F073343,F073321 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAM HILL, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. Nos. BF127560A & BF149188A)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. J. Eric Bradshaw, Judge.
Meredith J. Watts, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Adam Hill was charged with the following six counts: furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11380, subd. (a) (count 1)), possession of methamphetamine while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a) (count 2)), possession of methamphetamine, a felony (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) (count 3)), felon in possession of a firearm, a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1) (count 4)),1 possession of ammunition after a felony conviction (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1) (count 5)), and misdemeanor false imprisonment of a minor (§ 236 (count 6)). It was further alleged as to counts 1 through 5 that Hill had previously been convicted of and served a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for a crime committed on June 10, 2003.
A jury found Hill guilty of counts 2, 3, 4 and 5, but could not reach unanimous verdicts as to counts 1 and 6. The court declared a mistrial as to those counts.2 In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found the prior prison allegation true. Hill was sentenced to a five-year prison term based on the upper term of four years for possession of methamphetamine while armed, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement, concurrent to an upper term sentence of three years for the conviction of a felon in possession of a firearm. The court imposed consecutive, upper term sentences for possession of methamphetamine and felon in possession of ammunition but stayed imposition pursuant to section 654.
Hill presents three claims on appeal. Hill first argues that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress the search of his residence leading to the recovery of a handgun, ammunition and controlled substances in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Hill next contends that the court erred in finding him guilty of a felony, as opposed to a misdemeanor for count 3, possession of methamphetamine. Finally, Hill contends that the court erred in denying his petition under section 1170.18 to redesignate a 2009 conviction for possession of a controlled substance from a felony to a misdemeanor. He argues that, had the conviction been redesignated, he would not have been subject to the enhancement for serving a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for his 2003 conviction as it would have been subject to the five-year washout rule.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of convictions. However, because of the effect of Proposition 47 and case law promulgated thereunder, we are constrained to strike the one-year prior prison term enhancement and reduce the conviction for count 3, possession of methamphetamine, from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Prior to trial, Hill filed a suppression motion pursuant to section 1538.5, contending that the warrantless search of his residence in which deputies obtained a gun, ammunition and methamphetamine violated the Fourth Amendment. At the suppression hearing, the prosecution contended that the deputies had the right to make a warrantless entry into the residence based on exigent circumstances to search for additional victims, the protective sweep doctrine to search for additional suspects, or Hill's consent. Deputies were concerned that other victims were present, and that shots had been recently fired from within the residence. Further, the prosecution argued that Hill provided implied consent to search by telling the officers where a gun was located behind his washing machine. Contending that the warrantless search for the gun was justified, the prosecution argued that the drugs found in the trash can next to the washing machinewere in plain view when the officers were retrieving the gun from behind the washing machine.
Hill disagreed and argued that, even if a limited search of his residence was justified by exigent circumstances or the protective sweep doctrine, the search for the gun, ammunition and methamphetamine were outside the authorized scope of any such search. Hill also contended that he did not consent to a search for those items.
The court denied the motion to suppress without commenting on the evidence or legal arguments presented.
Friends S.B. and P.C. met and walked to a convenience store late at night. S.B. was 15 years old and P.C. was 17 years old at the time. P.C. did not know the last time S.B. used drugs, but she and S.B. had smoked methamphetamine together the day before.
S.B. testified that on the day of the incident, she "had access" to her own methamphetamine, syringes, and Xanax pills and that she likely had used methamphetamine, marijuana, and pills such as Xanax that day. S.B. admitted she was "high" on methamphetamine at the time P.C. and S.B. went to the convenience store. However, P.C. testified that neither she nor S.B. were in possession of methamphetamine when they went to that store.
While at the store, S.B. and P.C. met Hill and he drove them to his residence. Another male was present there. S.B. took Xanax pills and methamphetamine. After several hours, P.C. checked on S.B. in Hill's bedroom and saw her with a necktie around her arm, appearing disoriented. Hill told P.C. that S.B. had taken a large hit of dope and would be okay. Sometime later, P.C. left Hill's residence but could not convince S.B. toleave with her. While walking away from Hill's residence, P.C. saw Hill and S.B. drive by.
P.C. went to a friend's house and told the friend's parents she was concerned for S.B.'s safety. P.C. attempted to contact S.B. several times. P.C. was scared because she received a message from Hill threatening to shoot her and S.B. A sheriff's deputy arrived, and P.C. described the events that occurred at Hill's residence.
Sherriff's deputies went to Hill's residence and noticed two broken windows. A potted plant appeared to have been thrown through one window, and the other window was shot through, with a corresponding bullet hole in a cinderblock wall outside the residence. A deputy saw Hill through the blinds of a broken window and ordered him out of the residence. After Hill exited the residence, sheriff's deputies called into the house for several minutes before S.B. exited slowly, appearing disoriented. At least one deputy then entered Hill's residence to perform a protective sweep to check if there were other individuals present.
Sometime after the protective sweep was underway, another deputy questioned Hill after placing him in custody and giving him a Miranda advisement.4 The deputies asked Hill where the gun was located. Hill paused and responded that it was behind the washing machine. Two deputies then entered the residence, looked behind the machine and saw a gun inside a holster. The gun was on the floor near the hoses coming out of the back of the washing machine. A deputy seized the gun and cleared it of any ammunition to render it safe. Live ammunition was found in the handgun.
While the deputies were unloading the gun on top of the washing machine, they looked down and saw pill bottles in a trash can. The bottles contained packages of clear cellophane wrapping that had both pills and a useable amount of a substance, which thedeputies identified as methamphetamine. Additionally, in the room with the shot-out window, deputies found a spent shell casing.
Deputies expressly inquired whether they could search Hill's safe and requested Hill to give them written permission to do so. Hill signed a written consent form to allow the deputies to search his safe. The search of the safe revealed a shotgun, but no ammunition.
After finding the shotgun, deputies questioned Hill further. He admitted that he and a friend returned to his residence from the convenience store with P.C. and S.B. Once there, he observed the other individuals taking Xanax pills. Hill admitted that he thought there were people outside his residence in the middle of the night knocking on the door and yelling, and that they threw a potted plant through his window. He was scared for his safety and shot through the window. He knew he was not allowed to possess guns, but due to fear for his safety he had a friend bring two guns to his residence that day. Hill received several calls asking for S.B., but said she was not there.
A deputy interviewed S.B. She fell asleep approximately five to six times during the 15-minute interview. S.B. told the deputy that Hill took her purse so she could not leave. S.B. also told the deputy that Hill had provided her with Xanax, but she admitted he did not force her to take the pills. When questioned, she denied that Hill had provided her any other drugs. S.B. recalled Hill firing a gun while in the residence.
S.B. was again interviewed nearly two years after the incident. In that interview, she admitted that Hill had provided her with methamphetamine at his residence and she injected it.
At trial, S.B.'s testimony again changed. S.B. acknowledged that she told...
To continue reading
Request your trial