People v. Casteneda CA3

Filed 12/23/14 P. v. Casteneda CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075159

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF122594A)

v.

ANTHONY DAVID PERAZA CASTENEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Anthony David Peraza Casteneda pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) The trial court sentenced defendant to five years of probation, suspended imposition of sentence, and ordered defendant to serve 180 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant asks us to review the trial court’s in camera determination that one officer’s police personnel files did not contain any

1

discoverable materials. Because the in camera review was impermissibly perfunctory, we must conditionally reverse the judgment. BACKGROUND Prior to entering into his plea agreement, defendant brought two discovery motions pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 seeking the personnel records of Stockton Police Officer Houston Sensabaugh and another law enforcement officer. The trial court found good cause to review Officer Sensabaugh’s personnel files for evidence of dishonesty. The court then conducted an in camera hearing with counsel for the City of Stockton. The following is the relevant portion of the hearing on defendant’s motion to discover the personnel files of Officer Sensabaugh: “THE COURT: We are in chambers on a Pitchess motion. Marcie Arredondo is here from the City Attorney’s office. It’s regarding Officer Sensabaugh, and it regards the issue of honesty and truthfulness, and did you find anything in the personnel files that would reflect on those issues? “MS. ARREDONDO: No, Your Honor. “THE COURT: We’ll note that for the record.” DISCUSSION Defendant asks us to review the trial court’s ruling that there were no discoverable materials in the officer’s personnel records. Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause. However, he points out that his appeal is directed to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence prior to his plea. Where a defendant’s Pitchess motion is “ ‘directed to’ ” the legality of a search, a challenge to the Pitchess ruling is cognizable on appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m), providing for review of suppression motions notwithstanding a guilty plea. (People v. Collins (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 137, 141, 148-149.) Accordingly,