People v. Johnson CA2/6

Filed 1/7/14 P. v. Johnson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B244941 (Super. Ct. No. BA397476) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

MATTIE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mattie Johnson appeals from the judgment following her conviction by jury of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted allegations that she had one prior serious or violent felony strike and served six prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).)1 The trial court sentenced her to 10 years in prison. Appellant contends the court erred by admitting evidence concerning her employment and housing status, and by failing to order the disclosure of personnel records of the officer who searched her. The trial court ordered the disclosure of other officers' files. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).) She also requests we independently review the trial court's in camera proceedings of other records;

1 After the jury returned its verdicts, the court dismissed four of the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancements.

we have done so. There is no error in the proceedings. We reject her evidentiary claim but conclude the court erred by failing to examine records of the searching officer. We conditionally reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to conduct an in camera review of such records. If the court finds a matter that should be disclosed, it shall disclose it, and grant a new trial, if appellant can show prejudice. Otherwise, the court shall reinstate the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prosecution Case Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officer Humberto Moreno and his partner, Officer Eduardo Ojeda, were assigned to a task force in skid row. Skid row includes the area surrounding 6th and Gladys Streets where homeless people and others regularly gather to use, buy and sell drugs. On May 7, 2012, at 9:30 p.m. Moreno, a narcotics officer, stood on a rooftop, looking through binoculars, toward 6th and Gladys Streets. He saw appellant under a street light on Gladys Street, sitting on a milk crate. Cornell Chicquelo sat nearby, and talked with her, while he looked up and down the street, as if watching for police officers. Appellant pulled a small bindle from the left breast area of her shirt. She placed the bindle on a folding chair that faced her, made a "cutting motion," and returned something to her front right jacket pocket. Clarence Conway approached appellant and gave her paper currency. Appellant took something from her right front jacket pocket and gave it to Conway. He walked away, put something in a glass pipe, lit it, and started smoking. Moreno, Ojeda and other officers detained appellant, Conway, and Chicquelo. They recovered a glass pipe from Conway, and found a razor blade and makeup compact on the folding chair that had faced appellant. The surfaces of the pipe, the compact and the razor blade bore an off-while solid substance resembling cocaine base. Ojeda located a mesh backpack between appellant and the folding chair. The backpack contained three cell phones and $116 in cash ($20, $10, $5 and $1 bills). Officer Samantha Townsend searched appellant and felt a hard object in her left bra cup.