People v. Aceves CA3

Filed 9/27/21 P. v. Aceves CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C090221

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18FE018268)

ALEJANDRO JARAMILLO ACEVES,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Alejandro Jaramillo Aceves guilty of possessing heroin in prison. On appeal, defendant asks us to review the sealed in camera record of the hearing on his Pitchess1 motion to determine whether the trial court complied with its procedural obligations and, if so, whether it abused its discretion in finding no documents responsive to his request. Having reviewed the Pitchess proceedings, we conclude there was no error or abuse of discretion.

1 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

1

BACKGROUND Correctional Sergeant Eduardo Aguilar searched defendant, then a prisoner, and found a bindle weighing 13.20 grams containing a hard, dark brown substance that smelled of vinegar. Aguilar believed it to be heroin and later analyses confirmed it was heroin. Defendant was charged with possessing heroin in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6) with the allegation he had a prior strike (id., §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12). Before trial, defendant filed a Pitchess motion seeking Aguilar’s personnel records. Defendant contended there was a history of complaints against Aguilar for falsifying evidence. The trial court found good cause to examine the records for any evidence of dishonesty or fabrication. After an in camera review of the records, the trial court ordered the transcripts of the review sealed and found there was no discoverable information. On August 14, 2019, a jury found defendant guilty on the one count and the trial court found true the prior strike allegation. Defendant was sentenced to two years in prison, doubled for the prior strike to four years. DISCUSSION Defendant asks us to review the sealed in camera hearing transcript to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding there was no relevant personnel records requiring disclosure. The People have no objection to this request. With a Pitchess motion, a criminal defendant can “compel discovery” of certain information in a law enforcement official’s personnel files. The defendant must first demonstrate good cause by making “general allegations which establish some cause for discovery” of the information and by showing how it would support a defense to the charge against him. (Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 536-537; see Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) If the trial court concludes good cause has been established, the custodian of the officer’s records brings to court all the potentially relevant records and, in camera,