P. v. Gallegos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/11/13  P. v. Gallegos CA2/5

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   RACHEL GALLEGOS,               Defendant and Appellant.

B244827         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. KA098774)

 

            APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Mike Camacho, Judge. 
Affirmed.

            Gideon
Margolis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback and
Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

 

 

 

            Following a
jury trial, appellant was found guilty of possession
of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd.
(a)).  She was granted probation pursuant
to Proposition 36.  

            The facts
underlying the crime may be briefly stated as appellant merely requests we
review the trial court’s in camera hearing conducted pursuant to >Pitchess v. Superior >Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (>Pitchess).  Simply put, appellant was observed by a
sheriff’s deputy stumbling down the street. 
The deputy watched as appellant placed a small baggie in her sock.  The baggie contained methamphetamine.  Appellant testified in her defense that the
deputy lied about finding drugs on her person.  


            In response
to appellant’s Pitchess motion, the
trial court found the defense was entitled to an in camera hearing to review
any civilian complaints in the deputy’s personnel record that alleged the
arresting deputy falsified reports or planted evidence.  After conducting the review, the trial court
found no discoverable information. 

            The
mechanics of a Pitchess motion are
well-established.  “[O]n a showing of good
cause, a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant documents or
information in the confidential personnel records of a peace officer accused of
misconduct against the defendant. 
[Citation.]  Good cause for
discovery exists when the defendant shows both ‘“materiality” to the subject
matter of the pending litigation and a “reasonable belief” that the agency has
the type of information sought.’” 
[Citation.] . . . If the defendant establishes good cause, the court
must review the requested records in camera to determine what information, if
any, should be disclosed. 
[Citation.]  Subject to certain
statutory exceptions and limitations [citation], ‘the trial court should then
disclose to the defendant “such information [that] is relevant to the subject
matter involved in the pending litigation.”’ 
[Citations.]”  ( >People
v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.
4th 172, 179.)

            We have
reviewed all material in the record regarding the Pitchess motion, including the moving papers and the
sealed transcripts of the in camera proceeding. Those records are sufficient
for us to conduct our independent review.  (People
v. Myers (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 546, 553.)  We have found no abuse of discretion
committed by the trial court.  (>Ibid., citing People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216,
1228.)

            The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

                                                KUMAR,
J. href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^* 

           

We concur:

 

 

            TURNER,
P.J.

 

 

            MOSK, .J.