Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SDC206939, William H. Kennedy, Albert T. Harutunian III and Leo Valentine, Judges. Affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
Jamar Lee Hendrix was convicted following a jury trial of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The court found Hendrix had suffered a prison prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Hendrix was sentenced to prison for three years, which term was suspended under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3150, and he was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center for three years.
Hendrix filed a motion for discovery of police officer records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, and the court granted an in camera review of such records. The trial court did not find any discoverable records in the materials presented by the custodian of records for the police agency. Hendrix appeals and requests this court to review the sealed materials to determine if there are any discoverable materials in the police files. We have reviewed the sealed records and find no discoverable materials in such records.
Since Hendrix has not challenged the sufficiency or the admissibility of the evidence we will not include a statement of the facts of the offense for which he was convicted.
DISCUSSION
Hendrix filed a Pitchess motion in the trial court seeking any materials that would bear on the arresting officer's truthfulness. Hendrix alleged in his motion that the officer falsified his reports and had lied about certain key facts in the case. As we have noted the trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the officer's personnel records to determine if they contained any complaints or discipline involving allegations of dishonest behavior by the officer in the past. The trial court informed counsel it had not found any materials of the type referenced in the discovery request. Hendrix asked this court to independently review the sealed material and determine if there is any discoverable information in those materials. The Attorney General agrees we should independently examine the files. (See People v. Lewis (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 992; People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228.)
We ordered the sealed materials produced for our independent review. Having received and reviewed the officer's personnel records we agree with the trial court that nothing in such files should be disclosed in response to the Pitchess motion filed by Hendrix. Accordingly we find no error in the trial court's review of the records. Since Hendrix does not raise any other contention on appeal we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., NARES, J.