People v. Vedder CA2/1

Filed 2/21/14 P. v. Vedder CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B245975

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA091679) v.

HARRY JAMES VEDDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gary J. Ferrari and Laura L. Laesecke, Judges. Modified and affirmed with directions. Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Yun K. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Defendant Harry James Vedder appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of resisting an executive officer, in violation of Penal Code section 69.1 Defendant requests that we review in camera proceedings the trial court conducted after granting his motion for peace officer discovery pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial court did not err in relation to that motion. Defendant also contends the trial court miscalculated his pretrial credits by failing to apply the correct version of section 4019. The Attorney General agrees, as do we. Accordingly, we modify the judgment by increasing defendant’s pretrial credits. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with resisting an executive officer, in violation of section 69, based upon an incident at a Doubletree Hotel on the night of March 17, 2012. Because the issues raised on appeal are completely independent of the evidence presented at trial, we need not summarize that evidence. The jury convicted defendant of resisting an executive officer. Defendant admitted allegations that he had two prior serious or violent felony convictions within the scope of the “Three Strikes” law and had served six prior prison terms within the scope of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 12 years in prison. DISCUSSION 1. Review of in camera Pitchess proceedings Defendant filed a motion seeking discovery of identifying information regarding everyone who accused four named officers of “bias and dishonesty, including, but not limited to lying, filing false police reports, fabricating admissions, confessions, or other evidence of perjury, theft, fraud, misrepresentation, or malfeasance” or was interviewed