People v. Wycoff

California Court of Appeal Jun 30, 2008 No. B198572Published

Before: Perren

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded for a new Pitchess hearing because the record was insufficient to determine if the trial court properly exercised its discretion, as the custodian of records failed to produce the officer's complete personnel file or provide an adequate record of withheld documents. The court further clarified that a defendant retains the right to appeal the judgment entered on remand following a conditional reversal.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying discovery during a Pitchess hearing.
Whether the custodian of records must establish on the record which documents were included in a complete personnel file when not all are produced for court review.
Whether a defendant may appeal the judgment entered on remand following a conditional reversal for a new Pitchess hearing.

Disposition. conditionally reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We therefore conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for a new Pitchess hearing in which the proper procedure is followed.”

“We publish this case to clarify that defendant has the right to appeal the judgment entered on remand following a conditional reversal.”

“It is for the court to make not only the final evaluation but also a record that can be reviewed on appeal.”

Synopsis

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]

Opinion

PERREN, J.

Davy Wycoff appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of selling, transporting, or offering to sell cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code,

§ 11352, subd. (a)) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) (§ 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court also found true the allegations that Wycoff had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and had suffered a prior narcotics conviction and served a prior prison term (§§ 11351, 11370.2, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to eight years in state prison. In addition to contentions challenging the sufficiency and exclusion of evidence, he asks us to independently review the record of the in camera hearing on his

Pitchess

motion.

(Pitchess v. Superior Court

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305].) While we reject Wycoff’s claims of error, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for a new

Pitchess

hearing in which the proper procedure is followed, in accordance with

People v. Guevara

(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 69 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 581]

(Guevara).

We publish this case to clarify that defendant has the right to appeal the judgment entered on remand following a conditional reversal.

[413]

FACTS

At 3:30 a.m. on September 30, 2006, Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Barrios and his partner were patrolling in Wilmington when they saw Wycoff and Josselle Hernandez standing on a street comer. As they drove closer, Officer Barrios observed Wycoff hand Hernandez something after both of them had been looking down at the open palm of Wycoff’s right hand. When Hernandez saw the patrol car, she brought her hand up to her mouth and put something inside. Wycoff turned his back away from the officers, appeared to manipulate his rear waistband, and then dropped a plastic baggy he was holding in his right hand. Officer Barrios recovered the baggy, which contained an off-white substance that resembled rock cocaine. The officer also recovered an off-white substance resembling rock cocaine from Hernandez’s mouth. Wycoff had $9 in cash in his pocket, all in $1 bills, while Hernandez had a total of $7.

People v. Wycoff

AI Brief

Synopsis

PERREN, J.

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief