P. v. Perkins CA5

Filed 6/28/13 P. v. Perkins CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F063997

v. (Super. Ct. No. MF009042A)

ANTHONY LORAN PERKINS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge. Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Leanne LeMon and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Peña, J.

A jury convicted appellant, Anthony Loran Perkins, of battery by a prison inmate on a correctional officer (Pen. Code,1 § 4501.5). The court imposed a prison term of four years, to be served consecutively to the term appellant was serving at the time of the instant offense. Prior to trial, appellant made a so-called Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3rd 531 (Pitchess)) for discovery of certain information and materials, including the personnel records of two named correctional officers. At an in camera hearing, the court denied the motion. Also prior to trial, appellant made a motion pursuant to section 1054 et seq. to compel discovery of various materials including documents relating to certain correctional officers (discovery motion). The court granted the discovery motion as to certain items and denied it as to other items. On appeal, appellant argues that the court erred in denying his discovery motion, and asks that this court review the in camera Pitchess proceeding and determine if the trial court erred in denying the Pitchess motion. We affirm. FACTS Correctional Officer Richard Catlin testified to the following: On July 26, 2009 (July 26), appellant was a prisoner confined at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi (CCI Tehachapi), and was in his cell, when Catlin, who was in the process of delivering a meal to appellant, heard appellant say something. Catlin, who was holding the food tray in his left hand and had just opened the food port, i.e., the opening in the cell door through which food is delivered to the inmate in the cell, leaned closer and, as he was handing the tray over, asked appellant what he had said. At that point, appellant grabbed the officer‘s left wrist and tried to pull it inside the food port. Catlin quickly