People v. Frazier CA5

Filed 9/14/16 P. v. Frazier CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F070425 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF010982A) v.

RODNEY FRAZIER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John S. Somers, Judge. Kelly C. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.

Appellant Rodney Frazier appeals from his conviction for possessing a sharp instrument while confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)), seeking review of the Pitchess1 and Brady2 hearing conducted by the trial court. For the reasons set forth below, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant, an inmate, was residing at the Kern Valley State Prison in Delano. On September 11, 2012, during a search of his wheelchair, Correctional Officer Mario Lozano found two inmate-manufactured weapons consisting of metal sharpened to a point. Appellant was charged with possessing a sharp instrument while confined in a penal institution. In his defense, appellant alleged Officer Lozano had not, in fact, discovered the weapons in his wheelchair and sought discovery, both of Pitchess and Brady materials, from the personnel files of various correctional officers involved in his search to support that defense. Following a hearing, the trial court granted review of Officer Lozano’s personnel files for material relating to “false reports or dishonesty” but was hesitant to grant discovery of any materials greater than five years old on Brady grounds, taking the issue under submission while questioning whether “Brady just undoes the five-year limit” statutorily imposed for discovery of Pitchess materials. The trial court then held an in camera hearing to review materials under appellant’s motion. As a result, it ordered the production of materials under Pitchess but denied “the request of defense counsel for disclosure beyond five years on ‘Brady’ grounds.”