What is the effect of in camera review of the in camera hearing that was held on a Pitchess motion?

On appeal, appellant requests that this court conduct an independent review of the in camera hearing that was held on his Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)). Further, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his state and federal constitutional right to due process and the effective assistance of counsel when the court denied his request for a continuance of the sentencing hearing. Finally, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike three of his four prior convictions. For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.

Given the issues on appeal, briefly, we set forth the evidence adduced at trial.