From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Miller

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B203355 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMY MILLER, Defendant and Appellant. B203355 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division September 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA321781. Marsha N. Revel, Judge.

Renee Rich, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

HASTINGS, J.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Jimmy Miller appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a).) Miller requests this court to independently review the sealed portion of the record pertaining to discovery of a police officer’s personnel records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) to determine whether the trial court erroneously withheld discoverable information from the defense. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Because Miller makes no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, we state the facts briefly in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.)

In the afternoon of March 27, 2007 Miller entered an adult bookstore on Western Avenue in Hollywood. He was wearing a woman’s wig, and was carrying two small pink purses and a shopping bag. The security guard told Miller that company policy required customers to leave their shopping bags at the counter while shopping at the store. Miller resisted but finally relinquished his shopping bag.

The security guard watched as Miller browsed through the store. When Miller approached the adult theater portion of the store the security guard told Miller he would first have to pay the $7 admittance fee. Miller attempted to enter the ladies’ bathroom but the door was locked. Miller became verbally abusive. A sales clerk rushed to the security guard’s aid and told Miller to leave the store. Miller opened his purse, pulled out a large kitchen knife and chased after the clerk. The clerk ran into the manager’s office and closed the door. Miller continued to yell profanities at the clerk, and when the clerk opened the manager’s office door, Miller spat at him.

A month later police officers arrested Miller. Miller was wearing a woman’s wig, a skirt, and was carrying a purse. At the police station Miller waived his Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602) rights and agreed to speak with Officer Mehrdad Fard. The interrogation was neither videotaped nor tape-recorded. Officer Fard showed Miller a still image of surveillance footage from the store’s security camera. The photo depicted a man running away from an individual who was holding a knife in his hand. When Miller saw the photo he “blurted out,” “[y]eah, that’s me.” Officer Fard testified Miller made this and similarly incriminating statements during the interview, including, a statement identifying his pink purses.

The jury convicted Miller of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a).) The court sentenced Miller to the high term of four years in state prison and imposed related fines and fees.

DISCUSSION

In response to Miller’s pretrial motion under Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531, the trial court ordered the police department’s custodian of records to produce Officer Fard’s personnel records for in camera review of complaints as to false reports. The trial court conducted the in camera review and found nothing needed to be disclosed.

Miller asks us to independently review the sealed transcripts of the in camera hearing. We have done so and conclude that the trial court’s ruling was proper. (See Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 535; People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1232.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: MALLANO, P. J., ROTHSCHILD, J.


Summaries of

People v. Miller

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B203355 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMY MILLER, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Sep 25, 2008

Citations

No. B203355 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)