Opinion
A157139
09-11-2019
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEON LEE MEYERS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 153409)
Leon Lee Meyers appeals the trial court's denial of a motion he filed on February 1, 2019. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2009, a jury convicted Meyers of various offenses including assault on a peace officer. (People v. Meyers (Mar. 4, 2011, A127223) [nonpub. opn.].) Meyers was sentenced to an aggregate term of 33 years to life. In March 2011, this court rejected most of Meyers's challenges to his conviction, but modified the judgment against him and affirmed it as modified. (Ibid.) In June 2011, the California Supreme Court denied Meyers's petition for review. Meyers is currently serving his sentence.
In February 2019, Meyers filed a document in the trial court captioned "Ex Parte Motion of Nunc Pro Tunc Pursuant to Attached Mandamus Petition." Meyers argued that as a result of the "new" California Public Records Act of 2019, he was entitled to access records of the police officers involved in the incident that led to his conviction.
In March 2019, the trial court denied the motion, treating it as a renewed postconviction discovery motion filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9. The court found Meyers was not entitled to postconviction discovery because his judgment of conviction became final in 2011. Although Penal Code section 1054.9 authorizes postjudgment discovery, the court noted that prior to January 1, 2019, Penal Code section 1054.9 only applied to defendants sentenced to death or to life without the possibility of parole. Meyers appeals the denial of his motion.
DISCUSSION
Meyers's appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) His appointed counsel informed Meyers he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Meyers filed a supplemental brief on August 26, 2019.
Preliminary, we question whether we can review the trial court's denial of Meyers's motion by way of Meyers's direct appeal. After the trial court rules on a postconviction discovery motion, "either party may challenge that ruling by a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal." (In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692.) Meyers styled his filing in the superior court as a ". . . Mandamus Petition." In the interests of judicial economy, we treat the appeal as an application for writ of mandate and dispose of it on its merits. (People v. Payne (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 933, 937; see also People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 335 ["A court may in its discretion treat such a postjudgment motion as a mislabeled petition for writ of mandate"].)
In his supplemental brief, Meyers argues his "nunc pro tunc" motion was not "a state-law motion for post [judgment] discovery," but "a request for Brady material." Meyers seeks exculpatory or impeachment evidence "contained in the peace officer personnel records." Meyers contends that if he had access to this impeachment material, then the prosecution would not have called the police officers who testified against him at his trial. Meyers argues his trial was not fair. Meyers argues there is a pending criminal proceeding because he filed a habeas corpus petition in the lower court. Meyers seeks "an opportunity for an in camera hearing to determine if the trial was fundamentally fair based on . . . undisclosed records of police prosecuting witnesses." (Italics omitted.)
Having reviewed Meyers's arguments and the record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable appellate issue. The prosecution in a criminal case must disclose to the defense certain evidence that is favorable to the accused. (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady).) But Meyers's criminal case occurred a decade ago and his judgment of conviction has long since become final. "Brady imposes disclosure obligations on the prosecution but it does not confer discovery rights on a convicted defendant." (People v. Davis (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1367.)
The trial court correctly determined Meyers has no right to postjudgment discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 because he was not sentenced to death or life without the possibility of parole. (People v. Davis, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1366.) The statute was recently amended to expand this right of access to discovery materials for defendants convicted of a serious or violent felony resulting in a sentence of 15 years or more, but the changes "only apply prospectively." (Stats. 2018, ch. 482, § 2.)
On August 30, 2019, we received Meyers's motion filed pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, seeking substitute appellate counsel. Because we affirm the order denying his request for Brady material, we deny his Marsden motion as moot.
DISPOSITION
We affirm.
/s/_________
Jones, P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Simons, J. /s/_________
Needham, J.