People v. Ayala CA4/3

Filed 6/24/14 P. v. Ayala CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048613

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11WF1121)

THOMAS AYALA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer and John Conley, Judges. Reversed with directions. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stacy Tyler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Thomas Ayala of 10 counts of committing a lewd act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to this code), four counts of committing a lewd act on a 14 or 15-year-old child who is at least 10 years younger than defendant (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), and one count of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)). It also found true allegations defendant had substantial sexual conduct with minors under the ages of 11 and 14. (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 45 years to life in prison. Before trial, defendant moved for discovery of the personnel records of Officers Tran and Valencia, who had had contacted him at his residence. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)). Defendant sought access to “all documents . . . pertaining to [“[l]ack of credibility/falsifying police reports,” “[p]rior acts involving moral turpitude,” and “[w]hether the officers were previously employed by a law enforcement agency other than the Garden Grove Police Department”] . . . , including but not limited to documentation of citizen or law enforcement complaints of such conduct and any investigation into the officer[s’] conduct in the case at bar.” The court found good cause to hold an in camera hearing as to Officer Valencia. At that hearing, the temporary custodian of records for the Garden Grove Police Department stated under oath that he had obtained personnel records for Officer Valencia from his personnel and internal affairs files, as well as “a preemployment file which [he] did not bring because it was prior to [Valencia’s] employment as a peace officer.” When asked by the court, the custodian testified that upon reviewing those files, he “found nothing” touching on “issues of veracity, credibility, dishonesty, fabricated reports, [or] anything along those lines,” including “citizen complaints dealing with veracity issues,” or “investigations[ or] allegations of dishonesty in either file” despite Valencia’s eight years with the Garden Grove Police Department. The court declared, “It looks as though there’s nothing to disclose; so therefore, if there’s nothing to disclose, we