People v. Young CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 2021 No. F079921Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a third Pitchess motion because the decision was a valid tactical choice based on the defendant's desire to proceed to trial, and the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice.

Issues

Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a third Pitchess motion.
Whether the defendant demonstrated prejudice resulting from the failure to file a third Pitchess motion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Here, the record undercuts defendant’s contention that there is no satisfactory explanation for his trial counsel’s failure to file a third Pitchess motion.”

“Even assuming a Pitchess motion may have been meritorious, counsel’s stated reason for refusing to file a third Pitchess motion was a valid tactical decision.”

“In sum, there is no reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s verdict would have been different even if Pitchess-type evidence had been discovered regarding Robles, Loza, and Balkind.”

Filed 9/23/21 P. v. Young 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079921 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF012462A) v.

TORAINO LEON YOUNG, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. Oglesby, Judge. Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A. Martinez, and Cavan M. Cox II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Toraino Leon Young stands convicted of assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate. He contends on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a third Pitchess1 motion, seeking disclosure of confidential peace officer records. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 24, 2016, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate (Pen. Code, § 4501, subd. (a);2 count 1). The information further alleged defendant had suffered two prior felony “strike” convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e)), had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On August 24, 2017, defendant filed a first Pitchess motion, seeking disclosure of confidential peace officer records for two officers and Brady3 material related to 11 officers. On August 31, 2017, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), as custodian of records for the documents, filed an opposition to that motion. On September 14, 2017, the trial court denied the motion. On May 22, 2018, defendant filed a second Pitchess motion, seeking disclosure of confidential peace officer records for six officers and any Brady material related to 11 officers. Again, the CDCR opposed the motion. On July 11, 2018, the trial court denied defendant’s second motion. On October 11, 2018, after a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty on count 1 and found all special allegations true. On August 7, 2019, the trial court

People v. Young CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief