P. v. Rodriguez CA2/6

Filed 4/25/13 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B240119 (Super. Ct. No. BA385961) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony Rodriguez appeals from the judgment entered after a plea of no contest to unlawful firearm activity. (Former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (e).)1 He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), and that the calculation of his presentence conduct credits under former section 4019 violated his right to equal protection of the law. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY At 11:15 p.m. on June 25, 2011, Police Officer Isaias Medrano and his partner Officer Morales responded to a report of a robbery at 27th Street and Hoover in Los Angeles. The suspects were described as three male Hispanic gang members and that one suspect was armed with a gun. As the officers drove on 27th Street,

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

approximately one block from the robbery location, Officer Medrano saw Rodriguez in the street. Rodriguez looked at the officers and ran away. Medrano turned on the spotlight of his patrol car and watched where Rodriguez was going. Rodriguez ran through a gate into a yard, knocked on the door of a residence, and spoke briefly with a resident. The officers continued to follow Rodriguez with the spotlight. While still in the yard, Rodriguez pulled a gun out of his waistband, and dropped it into a planter. Rodriguez was arrested and the officers found a loaded automatic handgun in the planter. Rodriguez was charged with having a concealed firearm (former § 12025, subd. (a)(2)), carrying a loaded firearm (former § 12031, subd. (a)(1)), and unlawful firearm activity (former § 12021, subd. (e)). Also, a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony was alleged. On December 1, 2011, Rodriguez moved to suppress evidence that a gun was found in a planter because the police officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain him or probable cause to arrest him. On December 5, Rodriguez filed a Pitchess motion for discovery of any personnel records of Officers Medrano and Morales regarding fabrication of evidence, filing false police reports, and numerous other acts of purported misconduct. An attorney's declaration supporting the motion stated that Rodriguez intended to use the documents to show that the officers filed a false police report and themselves placed the gun in the planter. On January 9, 2012, the trial court denied the Pitchess motion and, on February 23, the court denied the suppression motion. Thereafter, Rodriguez entered a plea of no contest to the unlawful firearm activity charge. The other two charges were dismissed and the prior strike conviction was stricken. The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to three years in prison. Rodriguez filed a timely appeal without a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION No Error in Denial of Pitchess Motion Rodriguez contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Pitchess motion without conducting an in camera hearing. We disagree.