P.v. Delgadillo CA1/5

Filed 6/14/13 P.v. Delgadillo CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A136897

v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. H45927) WILLIAM DELGADILLO,

Defendant and Appellant. _______________________________________/

This case is before us on appeal for the second time following a conditional reversal and remand for a new Pitchess hearing. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; People v. Delgadillo (Mar. 29, 2012, A129750 [nonpub. opn.].) In his second appeal, appellant William Delgadillo asks this court to review the sealed record on his Pitchess motion to determine whether the trial court complied with our remand order and whether it erred by denying his request for discoverable information. We examined the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing on appellant‟s Pitchess motion and the sealed records the court examined at the hearing. We conclude the court appropriately exercised its discretion in ruling there was no relevant, discoverable information to disclose. We affirm with directions to the court to correct its sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment to reflect that the court sentenced appellant on October 5, 2012, not September 10, 2010. 1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We incorporate the facts and procedural history of our prior opinion. (People v. Delgadillo (Mar. 29, 2012, A129750 [nonpub. opn.].) A jury convicted appellant and a codefendant of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)) on an Alameda County Sheriff‟s deputy and he appealed.1 We concluded the trial court had not made an adequate record of the documents produced, if any, by the custodian of records and erred by failing to require the custodian of records “„to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant‟s Pitchess motion.‟” (Quoting People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229) (Mooc).) We conditionally reversed the judgment. Our remand order provided: “The judgment is conditionally reversed. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a new in camera Pitchess hearing in conformance with the procedures described in this opinion. If the trial court finds there are discoverable records, it must order their disclosure to defendants, allow defendants an opportunity to demonstrate prejudice, and order a new trial if prejudice is demonstrated. If the court concludes that there is no discoverable information, or that there is discoverable information but defendants cannot establish that they were prejudiced by the denial of discovery, the court is directed to: (1) restructure defendants‟ sentences in accordance with section 1170.1, subdivision (g); (2) redetermine defendants‟ presentence custody credits; (3) strike either the second or third prior prison term findings made against Delgadillo; and (4) prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a copy of the amended abstract to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.” On remand, the trial court held an in camera Pitchess hearing where it placed the custodian of records under oath. The custodian of records presented the complete files of