People v. Brown CA5 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/10/13 P. v. Brown CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,
    F066006
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Super. Ct. No. 11CM8891)
    v.
    RICKY BROWN,                                                                             OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James T.
    LaPorte, Judge.
    Ron Boyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
    General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Leanne Le Mon and Louis M.
    Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    -ooOoo-
    *        Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
    Defendant Ricky Brown was convicted by jury trial of possession of a controlled
    substance in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6) and he admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen.
    Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) ). The trial court sentenced him to
    six years in prison. On appeal, he requests that we independently review the records
    reviewed by the trial court on defendant’s Pitchess1 motion and determine whether the
    trial court abused its discretion by not providing defendant access to any of those records.
    We will affirm the judgment.
    FACTS
    At Avenal State Prison, Correctional Officer Juan Ramirez advised defendant, an
    inmate, that he would be strip searched. Ramirez walked defendant to a room for the
    search, and as defendant entered that room, he shook his leg and a bindle of marijuana
    dropped out of his pant leg.
    DISCUSSION
    Before trial, defendant requested disclosure of Officer Ramirez’s personnel
    records relevant to his dishonesty or untruthfulness. At the hearing on defendant’s
    Pitchess motion, the trial court found sufficient grounds to review the records in camera.
    After conducting the review, the trial court found nothing relevant to the pending
    ligation.
    The mechanics of a Pitchess motion are well-established. “[O]n a showing of
    good cause, a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant documents or
    information in the confidential personnel records of a peace officer accused of
    misconduct against the defendant. [Citation.] Good cause for discovery exists when the
    defendant shows both ‘“materiality” to the subject matter of the pending litigation and a
    “reasonable belief” that the agency has the type of information sought.’ [Citation.] … If
    1     A Pitchess motion is a motion for discovery of a peace officer’s confidential
    personnel records. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 
    11 Cal.3d 531
     (Pitchess).)
    2.
    the defendant establishes good cause, the court must review the requested records in
    camera to determine what information, if any, should be disclosed. [Citation.] Subject to
    certain statutory exceptions and limitations [citation], ‘the trial court should then disclose
    to the defendant “such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
    pending litigation.”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Gaines (2009) 
    46 Cal.4th 172
    , 179.)
    A trial court’s decision on a Pitchess motion is reviewed under an abuse of
    discretion standard. (People v. Prince (2007) 
    40 Cal.4th 1179
    , 1285.) The exercise of
    that discretion “must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court
    exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted
    in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Jordan (1986) 
    42 Cal.3d 308
    , 316.)
    The record of the trial court’s in camera hearing is sealed, and appellate counsel
    are not allowed to see it. (See People v. Hughes (2002) 
    27 Cal.4th 287
    , 330.) Thus, on
    request, the appellate court must independently review the sealed record. (People v.
    Prince, 
    supra,
     40 Cal.4th at p. 1285.)
    We have reviewed the transcript of the in camera hearing and the settled statement
    regarding the documents that were inspected at that hearing, and we have found no abuse
    of discretion committed by the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for disclosure of
    Officer Ramirez’s personnel records.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    3.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F066006

Filed Date: 12/10/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021