Opinion
A155097
03-15-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCUS CHARLES BIDDLE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR307328) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.) --------
A jury convicted appellant Marcus Charles Biddle of possession for sale of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378, for which he was placed on three years formal probation, with 234 days to be served in county jail. In a prior appeal, he challenged the admission of a confession he made to the police on grounds it was involuntary. He also requested that this court conduct an independent review of the trial court's denial of his Pitchess motion following an in camera hearing. (See People v. Biddle (Jan. 25, 2018, A148181 [nonpub. opn.]; see also Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).)
We rejected Biddle's challenge to the admission of his confession, but under People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62 (Guevara) found the record inadequate to conduct meaningful review of the court's denial of the Pitchess motion. (See People v. Biddle, supra, A148181 [citing and discussing Guevara, supra, 148 Cal. App.4th at p. 69].)
We conditionally reversed and remanded for another Pitchess hearing. (People v. Biddle, supra, A148181; see People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 182-183 [proper remedy upon finding procedural error in trial court's Pitchess review is conditional reversal with directions to review the requested documents in chambers on remand].) On remand, the trial court vacated its prior denial of Biddle's Pitchess motion, conducted a second Pitchess hearing, this time in conformance with Guevara, and reinstated its denial of Biddle's motion. Having independently reviewed the sealed transcript of the second Pitchess hearing, we now affirm.
/s/_________
Streeter, J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, P.J. /s/_________
Brown, J.