Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. 02-2012 & 04-2012
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding, after an in camera review, that there were no documents to be discovered to defendant pursuant to his motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Having undertaken an independent review of the sealed records, we find no abuse of discretion and shall affirm the judgment.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts underlying this case are irrelevant to the sole issue on appeal. The following is a brief summary of the procedural background to this appeal.
In case No. 02-2012 defendant Michael John Soli pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378 - count II) and possession of methamphetamine with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370. 1, subd. (a) - count III). He admitted that a principal was armed in the commission of count II. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange, several related counts and allegations were dismissed. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 270 days of incarceration. Defendant timely appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause.
While the case was pending on appeal, an affidavit was filed by the Siskiyou County Probation Department alleging defendant had violated his probation by failing to report as ordered and by being found in possession of methamphetamine and ammunition. A felony complaint was subsequently filed (case No. 04-2012) charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) - count I) and unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1) - count II.) The complaint included a special allegation that the methamphetamine was in crystalline form within the meaning of Penal Code section 1170.74. Defendant pled guilty to the possession of methamphetamine charge and admitted the special allegation under Penal Code section 1170.74 in exchange for dismissal of the ammunition charge. The trial court found defendant to be in violation of his probation in case No. 02-2012 by virtue of his plea in case No. 04-2012.
The trial court sentenced defendant in case No. 02-2012 to the middle term of two years in state prison for count II and imposed a consecutive one-year enhancement term under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court imposed, but stayed under Penal Code section 654, a three-year middle term for count III. In case No. 04-2012, the trial court ordered defendant to serve a consecutive one-third of the middle term or eight months, for a total prison term in both cases of three years and eight months. The sentence was stayed pending the appeal in case No. 02-2012.
On appeal from case No. 02-2012, this court concluded defendant had shown good cause for discovery and in-chambers review of the personnel records of Game Warden John Dawson and therefore, the trial court had abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion made pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531. (People v. Soli (Oct. 24, 2005, C047039) p. 10 [nonpub. opn.].) We remanded the matter to the trial court for an in camera hearing on the discovery motion. (Id. at p. 11.)
The trial court conducted a hearing and in camera review as directed on August 10, 2006. It found there were no relevant or material documents in the personnel record of Dawson. Defendant had already been sentenced as described. A date was set for his surrender to custody. Defendant filed a new notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s decision on his Pitchess motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendant requests our independent review of the records presented to the trial court in camera to determine whether it was an abuse of discretion to deny defendant access to such records. (Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531; People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1285-1286 [trial court’s decision on discoverability of material in officer’s files reviewed for abuse of discretion] (Prince); People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 [same].) Defendant also asks us to review the sealed materials to determine what documents or categories of documents were produced and not produced for the trial court’s review and the sufficiency of any explanation of such production. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229 (Mooc); People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 68-69.)
As is customary, the records have been made part of the appellate record, but sealed, and appellate counsel for defendant has not been permitted to view them. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.328(c).) We have independently examined the in camera documents and reporter’s transcript of the trial court’s in camera hearing and review, and conclude the trial court followed the required procedure for in camera review under Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1228-1229), that the record is adequate for meaningful appellate review (People v. Myers (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 546, 553; cf. People v. Guevara, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 68-69), and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the contents of Game Warden Dawson’s personnel files on defendant’s Pitchess motion. (People v. Myers, supra, at p. 553.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J., RAYE, J.