Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. MA046242 Hayden Zacky, Judge.
Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Shira B. Seigle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Appellant was convicted, by a jury, of attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 664, 187, subd. (a)); assault on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (d)(1)); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)); carrying an unregistered loaded firearm (§ 12031, subd. (a)(1)), and evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) Appellant was sentenced to a determinate state prison term of 3 years and 8 months plus an indeterminate term of 25 years to life.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Deputy Giovanni Lampignano of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) was the victim in the case. The charges arose out of the deputy’s attempt to detain appellant. The trial court granted appellant’s pretrial motion, pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), to conduct an in camera review of the LASD records to determine whether there were complaints concerning the deputy’s use of “excessive force, [or engagement in], dishonesty and fabrication.” The transcript of this hearing was ordered sealed by the trial court. Following the in camera proceeding, the court ruled there were “no hits in the areas that the court stated previously.”
Appellant requests we review the record of the trial court’s in camera hearing to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order disclosure of information concerning complaints of excessive force, dishonesty, or fabrication. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232.) Trial courts are vested with broad discretion when ruling on motions to discover peace officer records (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827), and we review the court’s ruling for abuse of discretion (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1228.)
We have considered all material in the record regarding the Pitchess motion, including the moving papers and the sealed transcript of the in camera proceeding. Those records are adequate for our independent review. The record does not indicate the trial court abused its discretion. (See People v. Myers (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 546, 553, citing People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1228.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J.KRIEGLER, J.