Opinion
2d Crim. B331751
08-20-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS GARCIA OJENDIS, Defendant and Appellant.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, John Yang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Los Angeles, No. NA120228, James D. Otto, Judge
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, John Yang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CODY, J.
Carlos Garcia Ojendis appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), flight from a peace officer (§ Veh. Code, § 2800.2), and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true a strike allegation and several aggravating factors. The court sentenced him to an aggregate terms of 11 years and four months.
The trial court sentenced appellant to an eight month term in a different case on the same day. We affirmed the conviction in People v. Garcia Ojendis (Apr. 12, 2024, B331797) [nonpub. opn.].
Appellant asks us to review the sealed records of the in camera hearing on his pre-trial Pitchess motion. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).) Pitchess "allow[s] criminal defendants to seek discovery from the court of potentially exculpatory information located in otherwise confidential peace officer personnel records. If a party bringing what is commonly called a Pitchess motion makes a threshold showing, the court must review the records in camera and disclose to that party any information they contain that is material to the underlying case. (See Evid. Code, §§ 1043, 1045.)" (People v. Superior Court (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 705.) We review Pitchess motion rulings for abuse of discretion. (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1285.)
Appellant filed a motion for discovery of police department records under both Pitchess and Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 . The motion sought records related to the credibility of three potential witnesses identified by the prosecution: Detective Scott Coffee, Officer Ryan Vint, and Officer Dawana Killingsworth of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). LAPD opposed the motion as to Vint only. After reviewing potentially discoverable records of all three in chambers, the court ordered some of them produced to defense counsel subject to a protective order. Detective Coffee later testified at trial about surveillance footage linking appellant to the robbery. Vint and Killingsworth did not testify.
After reviewing the sealed transcripts of the in camera hearing, we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. (See People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 ["Our independent in camera review . . . reveals no materials so clearly pertinent to the issues raised by the Pitchess discovery motion that failure to disclose them was an abuse of Pitchess discretion"].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P. J., BALTODANO, J.