Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD201963, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
Vincent Taylor was convicted of transporting cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) with a prior similar conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2) and two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Taylor to nine years in prison. Taylor appealed and this court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings with respect to his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). This court directed the trial court to "make a finding as to whether or not Taylor voluntarily provided his [driver's] license to the officers. If Taylor did so, then the suppression motion was properly denied and the judgment should be reinstated. If not, the trial court should grant the suppression motion."
On remand Taylor filed a Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) seeking the personnel records of the arresting police officer. The trial court found Taylor had shown good cause in part (as to documents concerning dishonesty, false arrest, illegal search and seizure, fabrication of charges and evidence, false testimony, false statements in reports, improper tactics, conduct unbecoming an officer, and neglect of duty); but not as to documents concerning racial prejudice, unnecessary aggressive behavior, acts of violence and attempted violence, acts of excessive force and attempted excessive force. The court reviewed the Pitchess documents in camera and concluded there were no documents to be disclosed. The court then denied the suppression motion and remanded Taylor to prison. Taylor appeals the Pitchess ruling.
The Pitchess documents and the transcript of the trial court's in camera review have been made part of the appellate record under seal. Taylor requests that we conduct a de novo review of the documents and the transcript to determine whether there is discoverable information. The People properly concede that Taylor is entitled to such review. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330.) We have conducted the requested independent review and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining there was no discoverable information. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J., AARON, J.