People v. Ray CA1/5

Filed 11/24/25 P. v. Ray CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A171438 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 153993A) EDWARD VINCENT RAY, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. (appellant), appeals from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s request for a transcript of audio discovery provided to him pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9.1 We reverse and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND In 2007, appellant was convicted of 21 counts of second degree robbery and sentenced to 38 years 4 months in state prison. (People v. Ray (Nov. 23, 2009, A117630) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, appellant filed a motion for postconviction discovery. (People v. Ray (Sept. 13, 2023, A166077) [nonpub. opn.].) As relevant here, appellant

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

sought statements made by two accomplices. (Ibid.) We reversed the trial court’s denial of this request, directing the trial court “to grant the motion as to any recordings and/or transcripts of: (a) an Oakland Police Department interview with Melissa Ray on or about August 29, 2006; and (b) an interview by deputy district attorney Sabrina Farrell with Larry Carrington at the North County Jail on March 5, 2007.” (Ibid.) On remand, the People sent appellant audio recordings of the interviews. Appellant subsequently filed a motion seeking an order directing the People to also provide him with transcripts of the interviews.2 Appellant submitted a report from a prison litigation coordinator stating that appellant had the opportunity to listen to the audio recordings but, after listening, the litigation coordinator would “mail the disk back . . . to the Alameda District Attorney’s Office as inmates are not allow[ed] to retain a compact disc[].” Appellant’s motion argued he was therefore unable “to possess this evidence” and, further, the audio recording “is NOT an admissible or useable form of evidence, that can be presented to a Court in support of his future filings of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.” The trial court issued a written order noting the prosecutor “has advised this court that it has located a transcription of the Melissa Ray interview in the file, and will provide that to Defendant.” As to the Carrington interview, the court found that appellant “has provided no information as to why it is needed. Defendant’s motion does not refer to any specific content within the recording and does not explain how or why a transcript is necessary to support his anticipated habeas petition.” Accordingly, the court denied the request without prejudice “to Defendant