P. v. Hunter
Filed 12/9/09 P. v. Hunter CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY C. HUNTER, Defendant and Appellant. | B212456 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA338691) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard J. Oberholzer, Judge. Affirmed.
Lori E. Kantor, 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, Keith H. Borjon and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Timothy C. Hunter appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) with the finding that in the commission of the offense he personally used a firearm, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for 13 years, consisting of the middle term of three years plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. On appeal, he requests that this court conduct an independent review of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess[1]motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The evidence at trial established that on April 2, 2008, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Bertha Alvarez was waiting for a bus at Sunset and Maltman in Los Angeles when appellant exited a vehicle and, at gunpoint, ordered her to give him her purse. After initially refusing, Alvarez complied. Appellant took the purse and began walking away. When a police patrol car drove by on the opposite side of the street, Alvarez yelled for help. The patrol vehicle turned around and drove up to her. Appellant threw the purse on the ground, near where Alvarez was standing, and walked away.
Los Angeles Police Officer Kimberly Cisco and her partner were on patrol and observed appellant and Alvarez and a car with its lights on parked along the red curb near a bus stop bench. Officer Cisco saw that Alvarez was distressed and made a U-turn to investigate further. As Officer Cisco made the turn and drove up to the red curb, the car that had been parked there quickly drove away. Appellant was holding something in his hand and dropped it when the patrol car drove up. Appellant walked away but was detained almost immediately. During a search of the area, the officers recovered a .25 caliber blue steel handgun.
Prior to trial, appellant brought a Pitchess discovery motion. Appellant contended the officers who arrested him falsified their report in order to have him improperly charged and held for robbery. In ruling on the motion, the trial court indicated it believed appellant had provided a sufficient showing to grant the motion as to the one officer whose observations were being challenged but not as to the other officer whose report made no reference to those observations. Based on the courts indicated ruling, both parties submitted, and the court granted the motion to allow an in camera review of the subject officers personnel file for incidents involving truth and veracity and falsifying police reports. At the in camera hearing, the court concluded Officer Ciscos personnel file contained no discoverable material.
DISCUSSION
We review the trial courts ruling on a motion to discover personnel records for abuse of discretion. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228.) Upon showing good cause, a defendant has a right to discover information from a police officers personnel file that is relevant to the proceedings against the defendant. (Id. at pp. 1226-1227; Evid. Code, 1043, 1045, subd. (a).) At appellants request, we have examined the materials the trial court reviewed and conclude there is no basis to disturb its ruling on the Pitchess motion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
MANELLA, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
