From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Henry

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Apr 16, 2009
No. B208124 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA326170, Patricia J. Titus, Judge.

Deborah Blanchard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


KLEIN, P. J.

King Henry appeals the judgment entered following conviction by jury of possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) The trial court found Henry had one prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and that he had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced Henry to a prison term of five years.

Henry’s sole contention on appeal is a request that this court review the in camera proceedings on his motion seeking discovery of police officer personnel records for an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229-1232.) Having reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera proceedings and finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

On July 24, 2007, at 4:45 a.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Christopher Ercolano stopped Henry for speeding in a car with a defective headlight and arrested him for driving on a suspended license. In a booking search, Ercolano found a compact makeup case containing cocaine base.

Prior to trial, Henry sought Pitchess discovery (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) related to the arresting officers, Ercolano and Nicholas Balzano. A copy of the arrest report was attached to the motion. The motion sought discovery of citizen complaints against either officer relating to any violation of constitutional rights, fabrication of evidence or other conduct amounting to moral turpitude.

The trial court found good cause to conduct an in camera hearing attended by Kenneth Tran, Los Angeles Police Department custodian of records, and a deputy city attorney. Thereafter, the trial court informed the parties there was no Pitchess discovery to be disclosed.

DISCUSSION

1. Overview.

In 1974, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531, that a criminal defendant may discover evidence of citizen complaints alleging misconduct by law enforcement officers if that misconduct assists in the defense. In 1978, the California Legislature codified procedures governing Pitchess discovery at Evidence Code sections 1043 to 1045. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 93-94.)

If the trial court finds good cause for the discovery, it reviews the pertinent documents in chambers and discloses only that information falling within the statutorily defined standards of relevance. (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019.) We review denial of a Pitchess discovery for abuse of discretion. (People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 992; Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 535.)

Mooc teaches that the trial court should make a record of the documents it examines before ruling on a Pitchess motion. “Such a record will permit future appellate review. If the documents produced by the custodian are not voluminous, the court can photocopy them and place them in a confidential file. Alternatively, the court can prepare a list of the documents it considered, or simply state for the record what documents it examined.” (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1229.)

2. Application here.

We have reviewed the sealed reporter’s transcript of the in camera hearing on Henry’s Pitchess request. At the in camera hearing, the custodian stated a search of the officers’ personnel files had been completed by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Office of Inspector General, Office of Internal Affairs and Ominbus of Political Affairs. The custodian indicated he had brought with him the complete complaint history for each officer for the five-year period prior to the arrest date of July 24, 2007.

The trial court reviewed each of the complaints for each officer, stated the content of each complaint for the record and found no discoverable information for either officer. Although, the trial court did not retain copies of the documents it reviewed, this is not required under Mooc. The trial court’s summary of the documents as reflected in the sealed transcript is sufficient to permit appellate review of the trial court’s ruling. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: KITCHING, J. ALDRICH, J.


Summaries of

People v. Henry

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Apr 16, 2009
No. B208124 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Henry

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KING HENRY, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2009

Citations

No. B208124 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)