People v. Golson CA1/4

Filed 12/8/14 P. v. Golson CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139004 v. VINCENT GOLSON, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC076981) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Vincent Golson appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of battery, domestic battery, and aggravated trespass. On appeal, he asks us to review the transcript of in camera proceedings held pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) to determine whether they show the trial court abused its discretion in determining that no further police personnel records were subject to discovery. We shall affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND1 Defendant was charged with felony stalking of Jane Doe (Pen. Code,2 § 646.9, subd. (a), count one), misdemeanor battery upon Jane Doe, with whom he had had a dating relationship (§ 243, subd. (e)(1), count two), misdemeanor aggravated trespass (§ 602.5, subd. (b), count three), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242, count four). A jury found him not guilty on the felony stalking count and guilty on the three misdemeanor 1 The limited nature of the issue on appeal does not require us to recite the underlying facts. 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

counts. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of one year for counts two and three, with a concurrent six-month sentence for count four. With credit for time served, defendant was released from custody. Before trial, defendant brought a Pitchess motion asking the trial court to examine the personnel records of the police officer who arrested and questioned him. He also sought any further exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady).3 He contended the officer’s report deliberately distorted what defendant told the officer. Defendant sought discovery of any prior complaints against the officer involving, inter alia, dishonesty or deceit in the performance of his duty. In a supplemental declaration, defendant pointed out that he had received information that in 2011 the officer had been charged with a misdemeanor, although the charges had been dismissed, and that the officer had been subject to disciplinary proceedings. Defendant sought discovery of the police report of the officer’s arrest, as well as information on any other complaints made against the officer. Pursuant to a court order, defendant received a copy of the police report. A hearing was held on defendant’s motion, and the trial court found there was a sufficient basis to review the officer’s personnel records for evidence of acts of dishonesty. The court also stated that if it came across any further material subject to disclosure under Brady, it would disclose that as well. After its in camera review of the records, the court found no further information was subject to disclosure pursuant to Pitchess or Brady. II. DISCUSSION Defendant asks us to review the transcript of the in camera proceedings and independently determine if the trial court followed the proper procedures. The statutory scheme for Pitchess motions “is set forth in Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1047 and Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7 and 832.8. When a defendant