The People v. Escarsega CA3

Filed 8/26/13 P. v. Escarsega CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072349

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF110946A)

v.

HENRY REYES ESCARSEGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Henry Reyes Escarsega has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no errors, we shall affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND 1 After the partial denial of his Pitchess motion and the denial of his motion to suppress made pursuant to Penal Code2 section 1538.5, defendant pled guilty to

1 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

1

possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction and that he had served a prior prison term (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of 10 years, four months in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction to this court in case No. C064565, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress and the partial denial of his Pitchess motion as to one peace officer and asking us to review the records of another. Defendant‟s Pitchess motion had sought to discover the personnel records of Officers Huff and McCutcheon, the officers involved in the challenged search. The trial court summarily denied the motion as to Huff, finding the threshold for an in camera review of the records had not been met. The trial court conducted an in camera review of McCutcheon‟s file and ordered two of three incidents disclosed. In case No. C064565, we agreed to review the partial denial of the Pitchess motion (despite defendant‟s failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause) to the limited extent that the Pitchess claims were directed to the legality of the search. (See People v. Collins (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 137, 149.) We held the trial court erred in not reviewing Huff‟s file in camera. Because the records reviewed from McCutcheon‟s file were not maintained by the trial court, we were unable to review them. Accordingly, we conditionally reversed with directions to the trial court to conduct further proceedings regarding defendant‟s Pitchess motion. Specifically, we directed the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection of Huff‟s personnel records and to obtain and keep the previously reviewed records of McCutcheon. Defendant‟s case was set for hearing on the remitittur; he was not brought to court for that hearing. The trial court conducted an in camera review of Huff‟s personnel