Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Paul A. Bacigalupo, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles Super. Ct. No. TA082547
Jennifer A. Mannix, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillete, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Joseph P. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
COFFEE, J.
Marvin Clay was convicted by jury of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211) The jury found true an allegation that he personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced Clay to 13 years in state prison. In his second appeal, Clay contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused on remand to disclose officer personnel records after an in camera review. (Evid. Code, § 1045; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, Pitchess.) We affirm because the records contained no information which could lead to admissible evidence helpful to Clay's defense.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Clay and his co-defendant were charged with robbery. Eyewitness identification was buttressed by the statements of two Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputies, Rojas and Maldonado, that they had seen Clay and his co-defendant in and near the getaway car on the day of the robbery.
Before trial, Clay moved for discovery of any citizen complaints against Deputies Rojas and Maldonado concerning false arrest, planting evidence, fabrication or false testimony. In support of the motion, defense counsel declared that Clay was never in the car and gave a detailed account of Clay's whereabouts that day. The trial court summarily denied the motion without reviewing the records. A jury convicted Clay and his co-defendant.
Clay appealed from the summary denial of his Pitchess motion. We conditionally reversed the judgment with directions to review the requested documents in chambers on remand (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 180), because Clay had demonstrated good cause for in camera review of the records when his attorney articulated a plausible factual scenario for his allegation that the deputies' reports were false. (People v. Clay (Feb. 8, 2008, B193986) [nonpub.opn.].)
On remand, the trial court reviewed the records of Rojas and Maldonado in chambers. It found no information relevant to Clay's defense and reinstated the judgment. Clay filed this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Clay is entitled to appeal the trial court's Pitchess ruling following remand. (People v. Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 181, fn. 3.) We review the ruling for abuse of discretion. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330.)
Clay was entitled to any information relevant to his fabrication defense, provided that the information did not concern conduct that occurred more than five years before the charged crime, conclusions of an officer investigating a complaint, or facts that were "so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit." (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (b)(3).) We have independently examined the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing, in which the trial court made a clear record of the records reviewed. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229.) None of the records were relevant to the issues raised by Clay: false arrest, planting evidence, fabrication or false testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the contents of either officer's personnel files.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., PERREN, J.