From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harrelson

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Feb 16, 2011
2d Crim. B224041 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County of Los Angeles No. SA072558-01 Katherine Mader, Judge

Brian A. Wright, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


GILBERT, P.J.

Jon Tomas Harrelson appeals an order of probation granted following his conviction of resisting a police officer, with a finding that he served six prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 69, 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Harrelson 36 months of formal probation, with terms and conditions including 365 days of confinement in county jail. The court also imposed various fines and assessments and awarded Harrelson 260 days of presentence custody credit.

We appointed counsel to represent Harrelson in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. Counsel has requested, however, that we examine the in camera proceedings regarding the pretrial discovery motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

We have independently examined the sealed transcript of the in camera Pitchess proceeding and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to disclose all the information and records produced in response to Harrelson's discovery motion. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229 [appellate court may review the transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing to determine if the trial court abused its discretion regarding discovery of police personnel records].)

On November 4, 2010, we advised Harrelson that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Harrelson's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN, J.


Summaries of

People v. Harrelson

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Feb 16, 2011
2d Crim. B224041 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Harrelson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JON TOMAS HARRELSON, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Feb 16, 2011

Citations

2d Crim. B224041 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2011)