Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF126726A Sidney P. Chapin, Judge.
Neil D. Chhabra, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.
A jury convicted appellant, Ricardo Jessie Hernandez, of possession of methamphetamine in jail (Pen. Code, § 4573.6) and found true a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and allegations that Hernandez had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
On August 27, 2009, the court imposed an aggregate seven-year term, the middle term of three years, doubled to six because of Hernandez’s prior strike conviction, and a one-year prior prison term enhancement.
On appeal, Hernandez asked this court to conduct an independent review of the court’s ruling on his Pitchess motion. We will affirm.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).
FACTS
On January 11, 2009, at approximately 4:20 p.m., an inmate informed Detention Deputy Cooper that Hernandez had asked him for a glove. Deputy Cooper went to investigate why an inmate would want a glove and observed Hernandez sitting on the toilet in his cell manipulating a plastic baggie. A subsequent search of the cell did not uncover any contraband. However, during the course of a visual cavity body search of Hernandez, Deputy Cooper found a clear plastic baggie containing a small amount of methamphetamine in Hernandez’s clothes.
On May 12, 2009, the defense filed a Pitchess motion seeking to discover complaints filed against Detention Deputy Cooper for “acts indicating … dishonesty, false arrest, illegal detention, and the fabrication of charges, evidence, or reports ….”
On June 10, 2009, the trial court found good cause to conduct an in camera inspection of Deputy Cooper’s personnel file. After conducting the inspection, the court did not find any discoverable records.
DISCUSSION
Hernandez asks this court to independently review the transcript of the in camera Pitchess proceeding and the materials and documents submitted to the court to determine whether the court properly excluded discovery of Deputy Cooper’s personnel records. After reviewing the transcript and documents transmitted to this court, we conclude the trial court properly excluded this information.
The statutory scheme for Pitchess motions is contained in Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1047 and Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8. When a defendant seeks discovery from a peace officer’s personnel records, he or she must file a written motion that satisfies certain prerequisites and makes a preliminary showing of good cause. If the trial court determines that good cause has been established, the custodian of records brings to court all documents that are “‘potentially relevant’ to the defendant’s motion.” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.) The trial court examines these documents in camera and, subject to certain limitations, discloses to the defendant “‘such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) The ruling on a Pitchess motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 (Hughes).)
The record in the present case is adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. It includes a full transcript of the June 10, 2009, in camera Pitchess proceeding and some of the records the court reviewed. Although the court did not include the entire personnel file it examined, the contents of that file are adequately stated for the record. (See People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1229 [in some circumstances it suffices for the court to “state for the record what documents it examined”].) The court concluded there were no discoverable materials as to Deputy Cooper. We have independently reviewed the transcript and records provided under seal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on defendant’s Pitchess motion. (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1285; Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 330.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.