In re Michael H.
Filed 7/14/08 In re Michael H. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re MICHAEL H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B196692 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL H., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ27493) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Wayne C. Denton, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Santa Monica Police Department Officer Edgar Navarro responded to a radio call regarding suspicious activity in the area of Cedar Street. When Officer Navarro arrived at the scene, the reporting witness stated that she had observed two African-American males looking in the windows of her house, and the gate to her yard had been opened. Officer Navarro also spoke to a neighbor who reported that she had seen two males at a nearby abandoned house. Shortly after talking to the witnesses, Officer Navarro saw Michael H. and Evan B. who matched the descriptions given by the witnesses sitting in front of an apartment building about four blocks away.
Officer Navarro approached Michael and Evan, and asked them how old they were, and what they were waiting for. Michael said that he was 17 years old, and that he was waiting for a ride. Michael said that he had been at the apartment building for hours, and had not been in the area of Cedar Street that day. Because Officer Navarro was investigating a report that somebody possibly [had been] preparing to commit a crime, and because Michael and Evan were wearing large over-sized clothing and hoods on a relatively warm day, and because, based on experience, Officer Navarro knew that, [a] lot of times [crimes are] done with a weapon, Officer Navarro decided he needed to do a pat-down search.
Officer Navarro first asked Michael for his consent to be searched, but Michael replied that was against his religion to be searched. At that point, Officer Navarro began to conduct a pat-down search without Michaels consent. When Officer Navarro attempted to put Michaels hands behind his back, Michael pulled away, and tried to run. Officer Navarro and other officers grabbed Michael, and tackled him to the ground. Michael continued to struggle. Officer David Munoz ordered Michael to stop resisting, and to place his hands behind his back. When Michael continued to struggle, Officer Munoz tazered Michael twice, following which the officers were able to handcuff Michael and place him in a patrol car.
The People subsequently filed a petition alleging that Michael had committed the offense of resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer in the discharge of his duty. (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1).)[1] In June 2006, Michael filed a motion for pretrial discovery of the police officers personnel records. (See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) In August 2006, the trial court denied Michaels motion.
At a hearing in January 2007, the People presented substantial evidence establishing the facts summarized above, following which the juvenile court found that Michael had committed the offense of resisting an officer. The court declared the offense to be a misdemeanor, and ordered Michael placed home on probation.
Michael filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. On October 16, 2007, Michaels appointed counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues; counsel requested that we independently review the record, and that we review the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216.) Our court then notified Michael that he had 30 days to submit any arguments, contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Michael has not responded to our letter. We have independently reviewed the record, and are satisfied that appointed counsel has fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see also People v. Kelley (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
As noted above, Michaels appointed counsel requested that we review the in camera hearing on Michaels Pitchess motion. On May 7, 2008, we issued an order directing the trial court to conduct a further in camera hearing attended by the custodian of records of the Santa Monica Police Department, and to describe specifically on the record the nature of alleged misconduct reports against Officer Navarro and Officer Munoz, and to transmit copies of the sealed reporters transcript to our court. Copies of the sealed reporters transcript were received by our court on June 19, 2008. We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera proceedings, and conclude the trial court correctly found there was nothing relevant to Michaels case, and that disclosure of material from the officers personnel files was not appropriate. (See People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th 1216.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile courts orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BIGELOW, J.
We concur:
COOPER, P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Additional charges were dismissed and are not an issue on this appeal.
