People v. Remijio CA5

Filed 9/19/16 P. v. Remijio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070030 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF011130A) v.

GILBERT REMIJIO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey, Judge. Paul Stubb, Jr., 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, and Michael A. Canzoneri, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Gilbert Remijio was convicted by no contest plea of possession of a sharpened instrument while confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)).1 The trial court sentenced him to four years in prison. On appeal, he requests that we independently review the records reviewed by the trial court on his Pitchess2 motion and determine whether the trial court ordered all relevant materials disclosed. We affirm. FACTS On October 27, 2012, Correctional Officer Rick Stinson was performing random cell searches at Kern Valley State Prison. He found two inmate-manufactured sharpened metal rods inside the air vent above the toilet in defendant’s cell. After being read his rights, defendant admitted the weapons were his and denied his cellmate knew anything about them. DISCUSSION Before his plea, defendant made a Pitchess motion requesting disclosure of Officer Stinson’s personnel records relevant to dishonesty, falsification of records, false testimony, and fabrication. The trial court conducted an in camera hearing and ordered one disclosure. “A criminal defendant has a limited right to discovery of a peace officer’s personnel records. [Citation.] Peace officer personnel records are confidential and can only be discovered pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045.” (Giovanni B. v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 312, 318.) “[O]n a showing of good cause, a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant documents or information in the confidential personnel records of a peace officer accused of misconduct against the