People v. Pham CA2/8

Filed 9/16/14 P. v. Pham CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B252892

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA081451) v.

JIMMY DAT PHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

We review this case for the second time. In our first opinion, we conditionally reversed defendant Jimmy Dat Pham’s conviction for possession for sale of cocaine base with a gang enhancement (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5; Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)), so that the trial court could conduct an in camera hearing on defendant’s motion for Pitchess1 discovery. In his Pitchess motion, defendant urged that his “admissions” to arresting Deputy Choong Lee were coerced, and that Deputy Lee made false statements in his report to conceal his wrongful conduct. We concluded that defendant had demonstrated good cause for discovery of “complaints of acts of coercive conduct and dishonesty (including fabrication of charges, fabrication of evidence, fabrication of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause, illegal search and/or seizure, false arrest, perjury, dishonesty, writing of false police reports, and planting of evidence),” any disciplinary action taken related to those complaints, as well as any exculpatory Brady2 materials contained in the personnel file of Deputy Lee. (People v. Pham (Jul. 30, 2012, B233975) [nonpub. opn.].) We otherwise affirmed defendant’s conviction. (Ibid.) The following evidence was adduced at trial: On the evening of September 2, 2010, Deputy Lee was on patrol as part of a task force targeting Asian street gangs. Deputy Lee approached defendant, who was not engaged in any criminal activity, but was present in a gang hangout. Defendant told Deputy Lee that he was on probation and that his name was “Jimmy.” Deputy Lee asked defendant if he was in possession of anything illegal, and defendant replied that he was carrying rock cocaine in his pocket. Deputy Lee detained and searched defendant, finding 21.9 grams of rock cocaine and $132 in cash in his pockets. (People v. Pham, supra, B233975.) In Deputy Lee’s patrol car, defendant waived his Miranda3 rights and told Deputy Lee that he had been out of work for two years and that he was selling rock cocaine he