The People v. Ledesma CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 28, 2013 No. F065098Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's judgment of conviction after finding no discoverable information in a Pitchess review and ordered the trial court to correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying discovery of police personnel records following an in camera Pitchess review.
Whether the abstract of judgment contains clerical errors requiring correction to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We have reviewed the reporter’s transcript of the in camera hearing of February 24, 2012, and the records of Officer Smythe, which were submitted to the trial court under seal.”

“An appellate court may correct an abstract of judgment that does not accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.”

Filed 8/28/13 P. v. Ledesma 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F065098 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. VCF254604D, v. VCF246387)

DONOVAN JOSEPH LEDESMA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge. Candace Hale, 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, Stephen G. Herndon and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

In case No. VCF254604D, a jury convicted appellant, Donovan Joseph Ledesma, of first degree burglary (count 1/Pen. Code, §§ 459 & 460, subd. (b));1 attempted home invasion robbery (count 2/§§ 664 & 211); robbery (count 3/§ 211); and assault with a deadly weapon (count 4/§ 245, subd. (a)). The jury also found true a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in counts 3 and 4 and a personal use of a weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in count 4. In a separate proceeding, appellant admitted a serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)) and allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). On June 5, 2012, the court sentenced Ledesma to an aggregate term of 17 years: the middle term of four years on count 1, doubled to eight years because of Ledesma’s prior strike conviction; a concurrent six-year term on count 2 (the middle term doubled); a consecutive two-year term (one third the middle term of three years doubled) and a one- year great bodily injury enhancement (one third of the three-year enhancement term) in count 3; a stayed six-year term on the substantive offense and stayed great bodily injury and arming enhancements in count 4; a five-year serious felony enhancement; and a consecutive one-year term (one third the middle term of three years) in case No. VCF246387. On appeal, Ledesma: 1) asks us to conduct a Pitchess2 review, and 2) contends that his abstract of judgment contains a clerical error. We will conduct the requested review, correct Ledesma’s abstract of judgment, and affirm the judgment. FACTS On July 4, 2011, around dusk, Ledesma and two other men forced their way into an apartment in Visalia. Before leaving, the three men fought with the two occupants of the apartment, striking them with a bat.

The People v. Ledesma CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief