California Court of Appeal May 4, 2021 No. E073794Unpublished
Filed 5/4/21 P. v. Conners CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E073794
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1600859)
ANTHONY CONNERS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn and
Jeffrey Prevost, Judges. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stephanie
H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant Anthony Conners appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in
which he was convicted of one count of assault with a deadly weapon, with a finding that
he personally inflicted great bodily injury. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7,
subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) He admitted three prior felony convictions,2 and the trial
enhancements for all prior prison terms except those for sexually violent offenses, the
Legislature clearly expressed its intent in Senate Bill No. 136 . . . to reduce or mitigate
the punishment for prior prison terms for offenses other than sexually violent offenses.’”
(People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375, 396.) Accordingly, we shall strike the now-
inapplicable two one-year prior prison term enhancements under former section 667.5,
subdivision (b), currently attached to defendant’s sentence, and remand for the trial court
to resentence him. (See People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Ca1.App.5th 664, 682 [court
remanded for resentencing in part because defendant was entitled to have enhancements
stricken under Senate Bill No. 136].) On remand, the trial court may not exceed the
aggregate prison term originally imposed. (See People v. Castaneda (1999)
75 Ca1.App.4th 611, 614.)
B. Pitchess Motion
On July 20, 2018, the trial court heard defendant’s Pitchess motion for disclosure
of the personnel records of two sheriff’s deputies. Defendant sought any personnel
records that might tend to show the deputies had credibility issues, including prior acts of
6
moral turpitude, disciplinary actions resulting from the investigation of any citizen
complaints, any Brady4 material in general, and any records resulting from civil service
commission investigations. The court conducted the in camera hearing and ordered the
transcript of the in camera hearing sealed. After the in camera hearing, the trial court
stated in court that no discoverable information had been produced during the in camera
hearing. Defendant has requested that this court independently review the sealed records
of the Pitchess hearing to assess whether the trial court improperly withheld any
discoverable material from the defense. (People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 73;
People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330; People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216,
1228.)
“A trial court’s ruling on a motion for access to law enforcement personnel
records is subject to review for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Hughes, supra,
27 Cal.4th at p. 330; see Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 535.) We have reviewed the
sealed transcript of the proceedings and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing discovery on the basis of its conclusion that no materials were
relevant to defendant’s claims of moral turpitude and dishonesty against the two sheriff’s
deputies. (People v. Landry, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 73-74; Hughes, at p. 330.)
4 Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.
7
III. DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to strike the two one-year
prior prison term enhancements imposed under former section 667.5, subdivision (b),
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 136 and resentence defendant. After resentencing defendant,
the clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare an amended sentencing minute order
and an amended abstract of judgment reflecting defendant’s new sentence, and to forward
certified copies of the amended minute order and amended abstract of judgment to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER P. J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
FIELDS J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant's two one-year prior prison term enhancements must be stricken pursuant to Senate Bill No. 136 and remanded for resentencing, while affirming the trial court's denial of the Pitchess motion.
Issues
Whether the defendant's prior prison term enhancements must be stricken under Senate Bill No. 136.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's Pitchess motion for discovery of police personnel records.
Disposition. Affirmed as modified and remanded
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the proceedings and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing discovery on the basis of its conclusion that no materials were relevant”