People v. Torrico CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 2023 No. B318896Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded for a new Pitchess in camera hearing because the trial court failed to ensure the custodian of records searched for all potentially relevant documents following the repeal of the five-year disclosure limitation, and improperly relied on summaries rather than examining the records itself. Additionally, the court held the defendant is entitled to resentencing under the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 567.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its in camera Pitchess review by failing to require a search of records older than five years following the amendment of Evidence Code section 1045.
Whether a trial court may rely on a custodian of records' summary of documents in lieu of conducting an in camera review of the actual records.
Whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing under the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 567.

Disposition. Conditionally reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court failed to conduct the appropriate inquiry during its in camera hearing, requiring us to conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for a new in camera hearing.”

“A court may not rely on a custodian of records’ description or summary of potentially relevant documents instead of examining them itself.”

“We agree with the parties that Torrico, whose convictions are not final, is entitled to retroactive application of these ameliorative changes.”

Filed 2/23/23 P. v. Torrico CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B318896

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA119913-01 v.

JOAQUIN TORRICO, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carlos Dominguez, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Robert A. Werth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

In his second appeal in this matter, Joaquin Torrico, Jr. asks this court to review the in camera proceedings conducted by the trial court pursuant to his motion for production of documents under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), and to determine whether any discoverable documents were not provided to the defense. We conclude the trial court failed to conduct the appropriate inquiry during its in camera hearing, requiring us to conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for a new in camera hearing. We also agree with the parties that Torrico must be resentenced due to recent changes in sentencing law. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Torrico was tried and convicted of several criminal offenses in 2020. Prior to trial, he filed a discovery motion seeking all “complaints from any and all sources relating to acts of, fabrication of charges, fabrication of evidence, fabrication of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause, perjury, dishonesty, writing of false police reports, and any other evidence of misconduct amounting to moral turpitude . . . against Detective D. Lopez.” The trial court partially granted the motion, ordered discovery of the officer’s personnel files concerning fabrication of police reports only, and concluded that there were no records in the officer’s files responsive to Torrico’s motion. In Torrico’s first appeal, we held the trial court defined the category of discoverable documents too narrowly by ordering discovery of documents involving only police report fabrication when it should have ordered discovery of documents involving all dishonesty. (People v. Torrico (Oct. 8, 2021, B305870) [nonpub. opn.].) While we agreed the items the court had reviewed in camera were not discoverable under the broader standard of

People v. Torrico CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B318896

JOAQUIN TORRICO, JR.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

GRIMES, J.

VIRAMONTES, J.

AI Brief