People v. Brown CA5

Filed 12/10/13 P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F066006 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11CM8891) v.

RICKY BROWN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James T. LaPorte, Judge. Ron Boyer, 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, Leanne Le Mon and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

Defendant Ricky Brown was convicted by jury trial of possession of a controlled substance in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6) and he admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) ). The trial court sentenced him to six years in prison. On appeal, he requests that we independently review the records reviewed by the trial court on defendant’s Pitchess1 motion and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by not providing defendant access to any of those records. We will affirm the judgment. FACTS At Avenal State Prison, Correctional Officer Juan Ramirez advised defendant, an inmate, that he would be strip searched. Ramirez walked defendant to a room for the search, and as defendant entered that room, he shook his leg and a bindle of marijuana dropped out of his pant leg. DISCUSSION Before trial, defendant requested disclosure of Officer Ramirez’s personnel records relevant to his dishonesty or untruthfulness. At the hearing on defendant’s Pitchess motion, the trial court found sufficient grounds to review the records in camera. After conducting the review, the trial court found nothing relevant to the pending ligation. The mechanics of a Pitchess motion are well-established. “[O]n a showing of good cause, a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant documents or information in the confidential personnel records of a peace officer accused of misconduct against the defendant. [Citation.] Good cause for discovery exists when the defendant shows both ‘“materiality” to the subject matter of the pending litigation and a “reasonable belief” that the agency has the type of information sought.’ [Citation.] … If