People v. Gibson CA3

Filed 8/16/24 P. v. Gibson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100203

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F01432)

v.

CHRISTOPHER GIBSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Christopher Gibson appeals from a trial court order denying his motion for postconviction discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9. His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and asking that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). As defendant appeals from a postconviction ruling, the procedures set out in Wende do not apply. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226 (Delgadillo); see also id. at p. 231 & fn. 5 [not deciding whether due process requires

1

similar procedures in some appeals from postconviction rulings].) We nevertheless exercise our discretion to conduct our “own independent review of the record in the interest of justice.” (Id. at p. 230.) Having done so, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of rape and unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15 year old. The trial court found defendant had previously been convicted of five prior offenses, including two serious felonies. The court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison for rape, plus two five-year enhancements for prior serious felony convictions and three one-year enhancements for prior prison terms. The court initially stayed imposition of a sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse, pursuant to Penal Code section 654, but later corrected the judgment to impose a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for unlawful sexual intercourse, with execution stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. In 2022, defendant filed a request for postconviction discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9. (See generally In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 693-697.) The trial court initially denied this motion because defendant failed to show he had first made a good faith effort to obtain the materials from his trial counsel without success. Defendant then submitted additional information regarding his communication with his trial counsel and asked to renew his postconviction discovery motion. The court treated the motion as seeking “an email from Rob Gold (former Deputy District Attorney) to Allison Dunham (the trial prosecutor)” and conditionally granted the motion, giving the People 60 days to provide a copy of the e-mail or file an objection. The People filed an objection attaching responsive e-mails but arguing that they were not materials to which defendant “would have been entitled ‘at time of trial,’ ” so defendant was not entitled to obtain them pursuant to section 1054.9. The People also