People v. Quinata CA2/8

Filed 5/12/23 P. v. Quinata CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B315984
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA110169)
v.
FRED QUINATA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. James D. Otto, Judge. Affirmed.
Helen Hoeffel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Gabriel Bradley, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
**********
In August 2018, defendant and appellant Fred Quinata
threatened his 70-year-old cousin with a kitchen knife, tried to
choke him and demanded money or a credit card. After more
threats, defendant eventually forced his cousin to turn over the
keys to his car and fled the home. The next day, defendant
abandoned the car and attempted to break into the home of
James and Donna Copplin, both retired Los Angeles County
deputy sheriffs. They confronted defendant in the yard.
Defendant threatened Mr. Copplin with a metal rod and got into
a physical altercation with him, during which Mr. Copplin shot
defendant.
Defendant was charged with four felonies: carjacking
(Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)), second degree robbery (§ 211),
assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and attempted
first degree burglary (§§ 459, 664). It was alleged as to the
carjacking and robbery counts that defendant used a deadly
weapon (knife) in committing the offenses. It was further alleged
defendant had suffered 22 prior convictions for serious or violent
felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law.
Before trial, defendant made a motion pursuant to Pitchess
v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, requesting records
related to victims James and Donna Copplin.
The hearing on defendant’s motion was held June 3, 2021.
Defense counsel conceded he was only interested in any
complaints regarding acts of dishonesty or excessive force. The
court granted defendant’s motion to that limited extent and
conducted an in camera proceeding with the custodian of records
that was transcribed by a court reporter. The court found there
were no responsive documents to disclose.
2
Trial began in September 2021. The jury found defendant
guilty as charged. In a separate proceeding, the court found true
the prior conviction allegations. The court imposed a Three
Strikes sentence of 50 years to life, plus three years.
Defendant does not contend there were any trial errors.
Defendant requests only that we independently review the sealed
records of the Pitchess proceedings to determine whether any
procedural errors were made. Respondent does not oppose
defendant’s request for independent review of the Pitchess
proceedings. We have reviewed the transcript of the in camera
proceedings and conclude there were no procedural irregularities.
The trial court properly determined there were no responsive
records to disclose.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
GRIMES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
3