People v. Freeman CA3

Filed 3/13/15 P. v. Freeman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076158

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F06376)

v.

JAMES EARL FREEMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This is defendant’s second appeal in this case. We granted the People’s motion to incorporate defendant’s first appeal, case No. C070176, by reference. In August 2009, Sacramento City Police Officer Steven Fontana and Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Jason Abbott were conducting fare inspections for the Regional Transit light rail when they spoke to defendant James Earl Freeman as he left a train. During a lawful search of defendant, he was found to have a baggie containing cocaine base in his pants pocket. Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine base plus allegations that he had a prior strike conviction and had served four prior prison terms.

1

Before trial, defendant filed Pitchess motions (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), setting forth the procedure for a defendant to obtain disclosure of private information contained in the files of a law enforcement officer) asking for discoverable material in the personnel files of Officer Fontana and Deputy Abbott. The trial court found the motions established good cause for review of the officers’ files for material relating to racial bias and profiling. The court conducted a hearing on the Pitchess motions and determined the files of the officers contained no discoverable material. Defendant was convicted as charged and sent to state prison. He appealed and requested this court to review whether the Pitchess motions were properly denied. We reviewed the sealed transcript of the hearing and concluded it was inadequate for meaningful review. Accordingly, we conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to conduct another Pitchess hearing. Specifically, our directions to the trial court were “to conduct a new Pitchess hearing in which it shall either conduct its own review of the relevant records or obtain a list of the documents that the custodians reviewed. If the trial court finds there is in fact discoverable evidence, it shall then determine whether defendant was prejudiced from the denial of discovery. If the court confirms the lack of discoverable evidence or finds that defendant was not prejudiced from the denial of discovery, the judgment shall be reinstated as of the date of its ruling to that effect. Otherwise, the trial court shall conduct further proceedings as are warranted.” On March 10, 2014, the trial court (Hon. Emily Vasquez) conducted the second Pitchess hearing and concluded there was no discoverable evidence in either Fontana’s or Abbott’s files and denied the motions. Defendant has again appealed and requests us to review the record of the second hearing to determine if the court properly denied the motions. We have reviewed the records of the hearing and, for reasons to follow, conclude the trial court’s ruling was proper.