Opinion
B296790
06-16-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIEL CARRILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Aurora Elizabeth Bewicke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorneys 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA466093) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry A. Bork, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions Aurora Elizabeth Bewicke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Gabriel Carrillo (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).) He asks us to review the record of the in-camera proceedings held pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) to ensure that the trial court followed proper procedures and ordered the disclosure of all discoverable information to the defense. The People do not oppose appellant's request. After review, we conclude that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. We conditionally reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to conduct a new Pitchess hearing. The trial court shall determine whether the custodian of records previously produced complete or incomplete personnel files for the arresting officers for the statutory five-year period. (Evid. Code, § 1045, subds. (a)-(b).) If the custodian of records produced incomplete files, the trial court must determine whether any of the excluded categories of information should be disclosed to the defense. If so, and if appellant can show he was prejudiced by not having the information, he is entitled to a new trial. But if the trial court concludes that nothing was withheld or there was no prejudice, then the judgment shall be deemed affirmed on that date.
FACTS
On February 24, 2018, Los Angeles Police Department Officers Gabriel Gaxiola and Alejandro Higareda observed a Chevy Impala with illegal tint on the front passenger windows and conducted a traffic stop.
Officer Higareda approached the female driver and Officer Gaxiola approached appellant, who was in the front passenger seat. Appellant's window was rolled down. Officer Gaxiola saw appellant bend over inside the car, heard a "metallic click," and thought appellant may have discarded a weapon. He ordered appellant to get out of the car. After appellant complied, Officer Gaxiola found a handgun under the front passenger seat. While being handcuffed by Officer Higareda, appellant stated, "She didn't know about it."
Appellant was arrested. At the time, he had a prior felony conviction on his record. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Pursuant to Pitchess, appellant filed a motion for discovery of the personnel records of Officer Higareda and Officer Gaxiola. On July 19, 2018, the trial court conducted an in-camera review with the custodian of records for the Los Angeles Police Department. The trial court ordered the disclosure of certain records relevant to whether either of the officers fabricated evidence or was dishonest.
The trial court held an in-camera hearing. The custodian of records from the Los Angeles Police Department testified. He stated he did the search for the records of Officers Higareda and Gaxiola. But the custodian of records did not indicate whether he had produced complete or incomplete personnel files for the two officers. In addition, the trial court did not make any inquiry on this point. The trial court proceeded to identify the documents produced and stated their contents in detail. Regarding one file the trial court deemed incomplete, it inquired further of the custodian. The custodian provided new information that explained the status of that file.
The trial court ordered the disclosure of four items as to Officer Gaxiola.
A month later, appellant filed a motion for supplemental Pitchess discovery. He sought verbatim copies of statements made by four individuals who either filed complaints against Officer Gaxiola or who were interviewed by the defense. Per appellant, two of the individuals (J.P. and L.P.) did not remember the facts of their complaints, and two (R.C. and S.R.) did not remember the name of the officer against whom they complained.
The trial court granted the motion with respect to the statements by J.P. and L.P.
The matter proceeded to trial and appellant was convicted by a jury. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Relevant Law; Standard of Review.
When a trial court concludes that a defendant has made a showing of good cause for discovery of a police officer's personnel records, "the custodian of records should bring to court all documents 'potentially relevant' to the defendant's motion. [Citation.]" (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226 (Mooc).) "[I]n cases . . . where the custodian of records does not produce the entire personnel file for the [trial] court's review, he or she must establish on the record what documents or category of documents were included in the complete personnel file. In addition, if it is not . . . apparent from the nature of the documents that they are nonresponsive or irrelevant to the discovery request, the custodian must explain his or her decision to withhold them. Absent this information, the [trial] court cannot adequately assess the completeness of the custodian's review of the personnel files, nor can it establish the legitimacy of the custodian's decision to withhold documents contained therein. Such a procedure is necessary to satisfy the Supreme Court's pronouncement that 'the locus of decisionmaking' at a Pitchess hearing 'is to be the trial court, not the prosecution or the custodian of records.' [Citation.]" (People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 69 (Guevara).) The trial court must conduct its review in chambers and make a record. (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1227-1228.) After, it must order disclosure of material that is "both relevant and otherwise in compliance with statutory limitations." (Id. at p. 1227.)
This holding derives from Mooc, which stated, "The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant's Pitchess motion. A court reporter should be present to document the custodian's statements, as well as any questions the trial court may wish to ask the custodian regarding the completeness of the record. [Citation.]" (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229.)
We review a "trial court's decision on the discoverability of material in police personnel files . . . under an abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220-1221.)
II. The Matter Must be Remanded.
With respect to the documents reviewed by the trial court, we conclude that it ruled within the bounds of its discretion in deciding what to disclose to the defense. But we cannot affirm the trial court's ruling. It did not follow proper procedure because it did not establish whether the custodian of records had produced complete personnel files for Officers Higareda and Gaxiola and, if not, why not. The trial court did not create a sufficient record for appellate review and this judgment must be conditionally reversed and the matter remanded for a new hearing in which proper procedure is followed. (Guevara, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 69.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a new in-camera hearing on appellant's Pitchess motion to determine whether the custodian of records for the Los Angeles Police Department produced the entire personnel file for Officers Higareda and Gaxiola and, if not, whether there are additional discoverable records. If the trial court finds that there are discoverable records, they shall be produced. Appellant must then show that he was prejudiced by the denial of discovery. If the trial court finds that there are no additional discoverable records, or that there are but appellant cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the denial of discovery, the judgment shall be affirmed as of that date. But if there are discoverable records and appellant establishes that he has been prejudiced, he is entitled to a new trial. (People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 410, 423.)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST We concur: /s/_________, P. J.
LUI /s/_________, J.
CHAVEZ