Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF122615, Paul E. Zellerbach, Judge.
Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Rylaarsdam, Acting P. J., Aronson, J, and Ikola, J.
A jury convicted appellant Bobby Leon Love III of four counts of attempted murder, four counts of assault with a deadly weapon, two counts of attempting to deter a police officer in the execution of his duties, and one count of discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle. The jury also found the attempted murder counts were willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and that Love had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm with respect to the attempted murder and the assault with a deadly weapon counts. The trial court found that Love had four prior serious felony convictions that also constituted strikes and he was sentenced to a term of 70 years to life. In this second appeal, Love challenges the trial court’s ruling that there were no records to be produced that were responsive to his discovery motion made pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirm the judgment.
The facts of this case are recited in this court’s prior opinion in case number G040636, but suffice it to say the gist of Love’s conviction is based on the fact that he was identified as the shooter in a report of shots fired at an occupied car driving through an apartment complex. After he was detained, Love’s left hand tested positive for gunshot residue.
On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s unpublished opinion in case number G040636. (Evid Code, §§ 459, 452.)
Based on the only issue raised by Love in the direct appeal, we reversed the judgment against Love and remanded the case to the trial court for an in camera review of documents responsive to Love’s Pitchess motion to determine whether there was any information in the requested records that should have been disclosed to Love. If the Pitchess motion revealed relevant information that should have been disclosed, and if Love was able to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the evidence been disclosed, our opinion ordered the trial court to order a new trial on any of the counts so affected by the outcome of the Pitchess motion. Otherwise, the judgment against Love would be reinstated as to any counts for which a new trial is not ordered.
On remand, the trial court conducted an in camera hearing with the custodian of records of the Riverside Police Department “with respect to allegations of excessive use of force or violence by all four officers, as well as any allegations or complaints regarding falsification of reports by all four officers” involved. At the conclusion of the in camera hearing, the trial court found no information relevant to the issues of excessive force or falsifying police reports. On appeal, Love asks this court to independently review the in camera proceeding. (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 3.) Although Love also asks this court to examine the officers’ personnel records produced at the in camera hearing, retention of the records is not required, and the trial court’s description of the documents reviewed from the officers’ personnel file at the in camera hearing constitutes an adequate record for appellate review. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229.)
“A trial court’s ruling on a motion for access to law enforcement personnel records is subject to review for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330.) Because our independent review of the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing reveals no information pertinent to the issues raised by the motion on the issues of excessive use of force or violence and falsifying police reports, and there is nothing in the record before us which suggests a meritorious appellate issue with respect to the Pitchess motion, we conclude there was no abuse of discretion and the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal. (People v. Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 181.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.