From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Madden

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Apr 30, 2009
No. F054448 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF119889A. Stephen P. Gildner and Gary T. Friedman, Judges.

Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Hill, J.

Judge Gildner presided over the in camera hearing to review police records. Judge Friedman presided over appellant’s trial and sentenced him.

Gordon B. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. French and Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT*

INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Ja’Rayle Da’Jon Madden, was found guilty after a jury trial of felony possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count one), misdemeanor entry of a noncommercial dwelling house or apartment (Pen. Code, § 602.5, count two) and three counts of misdemeanor battery (§ 243, subd. (a), counts three, four & five). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b) and had a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law.

Unless otherwise designated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.

At the sentencing hearing, the court denied appellant’s motion to strike his prior serious felony conviction. The court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years, which it doubled pursuant to the three strikes law. The court imposed one prior prison term enhancement for a total prison sentence of seven years.

The court struck the second prior prison term enhancement.

On appeal, appellant seeks independent review by this court of information in the arresting officer’s personnel files pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) and People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Mooc).

FACTS AND IN CAMERA HEARINGS

On June 14, 2007, Jackie Kyker was with her son in their apartment. Between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. they heard a noise outside the apartment. Appellant entered Kyker’s apartment without permission. He looked scary, mentally off, and his eyes were glazed and disoriented. Instead of leaving when Kyker asked him to do so, appellant started dancing with her.

Earlier in the day, appellant touched his aunt on the cheek. The aunt told a deputy, however, that appellant punched her in the cheek.

Kyker pushed appellant away and told her son to leave. Appellant pushed Kyker. Kyker’s son pushed appellant back and appellant punched the boy in the face. After a further altercation, Kyker and her son ran to a friend’s residence and called the police.

Deputy George Santos of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department responded to the dispatch and found appellant trying to open the sliding glass door of another apartment with his car keys. Appellant’s eyes were glazy and he appeared to Santos to be “quite out of it.” When Santos asked appellant to jump over a balcony so Santos could talk to him, appellant fell to the ground. Santos handcuffed appellant. Appellant told Santos he was trying to enter his girlfriend’s apartment. After talking to Kyker and her son, Santos arrested appellant.

Santos took appellant to the central booking facility. As appellant was being booked, a plastic bag containing a white substance fell to the ground from appellant’s belt. Appellant looked down and said, “Oh, that’s my cocaine.” A criminalist tested the substance and determined it was 1.19 grams of cocaine.

Appellant filed a Pitchess motion seeking court review of the personnel files of Santos seeking information concerning dishonesty. On October 11, 2007, the trial court conducted an in camera review of Santos’s personnel file. After reviewing Santos’s personnel file, the court concluded there was no discoverable evidence concern.

DISCUSSION

Appellant seeks independent appellate review of the trial court’s ruling his discovery motion pursuant to Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531. Such review has been endorsed by the California Supreme Court. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 (Hughes); People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.) Appellant contends he is entitled to independent review by this court of the personnel records made available to the trial court. Appellant’s motion to the trial court was to seek information, if any, of past incidents in which there were complaints against Deputy Santos involving dishonesty or false statements.

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, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 330.) We have undertaken that review, following the procedures set forth in Mooc. (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1230-1232.) There were no claims against Santos involving dishonesty or false statements. After reviewing the transcripts of the in camera hearings as well as the personnel files of Deputy Santos, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court concerning its review of the investigator’s personnel file. (Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 330; Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1232; People v. Lopez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1536.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Madden

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Apr 30, 2009
No. F054448 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Madden

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JA’RAYLE DA’JON MADDEN, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

Citations

No. F054448 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)