People v. Moore CA2/2

Filed 1/22/21 P. v. Moore CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B302427

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA090092) v.

DAMON FITZGERAL MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Alan K. Schneider, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with directions. David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Paul S. Thies, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Damon Fitzgeral Moore appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of pandering by procuring. (Pen. Code,1 § 266i, subd. (a)(1).) Appellant admitted he had served one prior prison term, and the trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison for the pandering conviction plus one year consecutive for the prior prison term pursuant to former section 667.5, subdivision (b) (eff. until Jan. 1, 2020). Appellant contends and respondent agrees that the one- year prior prison term enhancement must be stricken pursuant to the amendments to section 667.5, subdivision (b) by Senate Bill No. 136. We also agree, and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing to strike the one-year prior prison term enhancement. Appellant further seeks, and respondent does not oppose, appellate review of the sealed record of the hearing pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) to determine whether police personnel records were improperly withheld from discovery. Having conducted our review of the in camera proceedings, we find no abuse of discretion. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On February 13, 2019, Los Angeles Police Officer Daisy Vanegas was working uncover “posing as a streetwalking prostitute” on the corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Wyandotte. Around 1:00 a.m. appellant pulled up in a car next to Officer Vanegas and asked her what she was doing and if she was working by herself. Officer Vanegas was wearing a recording device, which she activated within a few seconds of the initial