From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Mar 6, 2008
No. B192806 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD RAY WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. B192806 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fourth Division March 6, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court No. VA092197 of Los Angeles County, Patrick T. Meyers and Cynthia Rayvis, Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Marta I. Stanton; and Jorje Chica, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and April S. Rylaarsdam, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WILLHITE, J.

Donald Ray Williams appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and his admission that he suffered two prior convictions of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law, (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), served five prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and suffered a prior drug offense conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The trial court struck one of the prior serious or violent felony convictions and all of the prior prison term enhancements and sentenced appellant to prison for 11 years, consisting of the middle term of four years, doubled by reason of the Three Strikes law, plus a consecutive three-year sentence enhancement pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). He requests that this court conduct an independent review of the arresting officers’ personnel records in order to ensure that his trial below was fair.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On November 1, 2005 at approximately 9:45 p.m., Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Albert Saavedra approached appellant’s vehicle after appellant made a U-turn without signaling and parked his car in a driveway blocking the sidewalk and a portion of the street. From inside the vehicle, Deputy Saavedra recovered four plastic bags containing rock cocaine, two “rolls” of cash totaling $393 and two cellular phones that rang throughout the search and investigation.

It was stipulated that the four bags contained a total net weight of approximately 2.87 grams of a solid substance and that two bags were tested and found to enclose approximately 2.48 grams of a solid substance containing cocaine in the base form.

Appellant testified that he was pulling into the driveway of his employer, which was a recycling center, when he observed a police car with its red lights on. Appellant denied he had any rock cocaine in the car and told the officer it did not come from his vehicle. Appellant claimed the money found in his car came from a woman for whom he ran errands and paid bills. Additionally, he had money from working at the recycling center, where he was paid in cash.

DISCUSSION

Prior to trial, appellant brought a discovery motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Appellant requested personnel records of the two deputies involved in his arrest regarding complaints of aggressive behavior, violence, excessive force and bias relating to race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Additionally, appellant sought complaints of coercive conduct, violation of constitutional rights and misconduct amounting to moral turpitude, including but not limited to, allegations of false arrest, planting evidence, fabrication of police reports, fabrication of probable cause, false testimony, perjury and false or misleading internal reports including but not limited to false overtime or medical reports.

On November 14, 2007, this court ordered the record on appeal be augmented to include appellant’s written Pitchess motion, the People’s written opposition, a sealed transcript of the in camera proceedings, including exhibits if any, held on January 13, 2006. On January 2, 2008, the augmented/supplemental record was filed with this court.

Appellant contended the deputies lied regarding finding cocaine in appellant’s car and two cell phones on the front passenger seat of the car. Appellant intended to demonstrate that the deputies searched the area near appellant’s car, found the cocaine before they searched appellant’s car, planted the drugs in appellant’s car and falsified the incident report with respect to the location of the drugs. Appellant also intended to show that one of the phones was inoperable and was inside the glove compartment and that the deputies falsified the reports in that respect.

The court granted the Pitchess motion in part stating it would examine any records with regard to the two named deputies as to any allegations of planting evidence or falsifying/filing false police reports within the last five years. Appellant requests that we conduct an independent review of the materials produced during the in camera hearing to determine, first, if all potentially responsive documents were produced by the custodian of records, and second, if the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Pitchess motion.

We review the court’s ruling on a motion to discover personnel records for abuse of discretion. (See People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.) Upon showing good cause, a defendant has a right to discover information from a police officer’s personnel file that is relevant to the proceedings against the defendant. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226-1227; Evid. Code, §§ 1043, 1045, subd. (a). At appellant’s request, this court has reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing which contains the identifying numbers and the substance of the two complaints the custodian of records brought to court and the trial court reviewed. We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that neither of these documents was relevant or discoverable. One complaint alleged falsification of evidence and the second complaint alleged that the deputy committed an act of moral turpitude, which was relevant to the issue of whether he planted evidence or falsified or filed a false police report. The trial court’s denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. (See People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 410, 418.)

Further, we find that the in camera Pitchess proceedings were not conducted in conformance with the requirements of People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pages 1228-1230. When the “trial court concludes a defendant’s Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in a law enforcement officer’s personnel files, the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially relevant’ documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself. [Citation.] A law enforcement officer’s personnel record will commonly contain many documents that would, in the normal case, be irrelevant to a Pitchess motion, including those describing marital status and identifying family members, employment applications, letters of recommendation, promotion records, and health records. [Citation.] Documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant’s Pitchess request need not be presented to the trial court for in camera review. But if the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court. Such practice is consistent with the premise of Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 that the locus of decision making is to be the trial court, not the prosecution or the custodian of records. The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant’s Pitchess motion.” (Id. at pp. 1228-1229.) In the present case, it appears the locus of the decision making was the custodian of records and not the trial court. The custodian for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department stated there were “no complaints for any of those allegations” filed against one of the deputies. As to the other deputy, the custodian stated there were “a couple of complaints filed.” It is unclear whether there were more but that the custodian deemed them not relevant to the allegations. Contrary to the requirement of Mooc, the court did not inquire of the custodian on the record “what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant’s Pitchess motion.” (Id. at p. 1229.) Further, it does not appear that the custodian of records was placed under oath. “[C]riminal defendants are protected by the fact that a representative of the custodian of records is placed under oath before responding to a trial court’s questions during the in camera inspection of records.” (Id. at p. 1230, fn. 4.)

Finding the trial court erred does not end the analysis. Appellant must demonstrate he has been prejudiced by the error. (See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 684.) As we are “unable to conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the discovery sought in this case would have led to admissible evidence helpful to appellant in his defense,” we will order a conditional reversal. (People v. Hustead, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 410 at p. 418.) We will remand the case to the trial court with directions to turn over to appellant the discoverable information relative to the two complaints reviewed by the trial court. Additionally, we will order the trial court to conduct another in camera hearing on the discovery motion in accordance with the procedures outlined in People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pages 1228-1230 and disclose to appellant discoverable information if any in the file. Appellant must then be given an opportunity to determine if the information would have led to any relevant, admissible evidence that he could have presented at trial. If appellant is able to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the denial of the discovery, the trial court must order a new trial. If appellant is unable to show any prejudice, then the conviction is ordered reinstated, and the judgment is ordered affirmed.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to grant the discovery of the two complaints it identified in the in camera proceedings dated January 13, 2006, and to conduct another in camera hearing consistent with this opinion. If the in camera hearing reveals additional discoverable information relative to the allegations of planting evidence or falsifying/filing false police reports within the last five years, the trial court shall grant the requested discovery. The trial court shall allow appellant a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate prejudice and shall order a new trial if prejudice is demonstrated. Otherwise, the trial court shall reinstate the original judgment and sentence.

Respondent observes that the abstract of judgment does not reflect the drug program fee and penalty assessments imposed by the trial court and requests this court modify the abstract of judgment to so reflect. If the original judgment and sentence are reinstated, the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect the program fee and penalty assessment imposed.

We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J., SUZUKAWA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Mar 6, 2008
No. B192806 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD RAY WILLIAMS, Defendant…

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

Date published: Mar 6, 2008

Citations

No. B192806 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2008)