People v. Haywood CA5

Filed 11/4/14 P. v. Haywood CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F068135

v. (Super. Ct. No. SF16843A)

RUFUS MAXIMILLION HAYWOOD, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey, Judge. Rachel Varnell, 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, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.

Defendant Rufus Maximillion Haywood was convicted by no contest plea of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236)1 and impersonating a peace officer (§ 146a, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to three years eight months in prison. On appeal, he contends the abstract of judgment does not reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court, and he requests that we review the trial court’s in camera review of Pitchess2 material. We affirm. DISCUSSION I. Abstract of Judgment Defendant contends, and the People agree, that the trial court sentenced defendant to three years eight months, to be served concurrently with his term in case number SF16481A, but the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects that the sentences are to be served consecutively. We agree that the original abstract was incorrect. On February 4, 2014, however, this court received an amended abstract of judgment, filed on January 14, 2014, which correctly reflects that the sentences are to be served concurrently. Accordingly, no further action is required. II. Pitchess Review Defendant asks that we review the material examined in camera by the trial court pursuant to defendant’s Pitchess motion for discovery of complaints of dishonesty, false statements, or fabrication of charges by officers. The trial court found no discoverable material in the officers’ personnel files. Defendant requests that we review that ruling. The People counter that defendant has waived this challenge by pleading no contest. In his reply brief, defendant concedes the issue in light of the People’s points. We agree.