Opinion
F072960
07-31-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT EARL BANKS, Defendant and Appellant.
Janice Wellborn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. BF160076A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey and David R. Lampe, Judges. Janice Wellborn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.
Judge Humphrey conducted the in camera hearing; Judge Lampe sentenced the defendant.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Robert Earl Banks requests that we independently review the records reviewed by the trial court pursuant to his Pitchess motion and the in camera transcript of the Pitchess hearing and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. We affirm.
A Pitchess motion is a motion for discovery of a peace officer's confidential personnel records. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).)
FACTS
On May 5, 2015, Bakersfield Policer Officer Seann Woessner stopped a vehicle driven by appellant. The vehicle was searched. In the trunk, Woessner found a canvas bag containing ammunition and two handguns. When questioned by Woessner after waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, appellant denied any knowledge of the weapons and ammunition but admitted that the vehicle was his.
Appellant was charged with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)). It was alleged in each count that appellant had previously suffered two felony convictions, both of which resulted in prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On October 13, 2015, appellant filed a Pitchess motion for discovery of the personnel records of Woessner. Supporting the motion was a declaration which stated that appellant denied telling Woessner that the vehicle he was driving, in which the guns and ammunition were found, belonged to appellant.
On November 5, 2015, the trial court examined the personnel files of Woessner in camera. The court determined that none of the personnel files were discoverable and denied appellant access to any of the files.
On November 20, 2015, a jury found all of the allegations to be true.
On December 18, 2015, appellant was sentenced to state prison for a term of five years.
On December 28, 2015, a timely notice of appeal was filed.
DISCUSSION
The only issue raised by appellant is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his Pitchess motion. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228.) Appellant requests this court to conduct an independent examination of the personnel files of Woessner presented to the court at the in camera hearing and the transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing. Appellant also requests this court to determine whether any of Woessner's personnel records were withheld from the trial court.
We have independently reviewed the sealed reporter's transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing and the personnel files of Woessner. We conclude that the entire personnel file of Woessner was examined at the in camera Pitchess hearing and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding from disclosure any of the officer's personnel records. (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.