P. v. Lane
Filed 1/7/09 P. v. Lane CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELBERT LANE, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B204668 (Super. Ct. No. BA319816) (Los Angeles County) |
This court often reviews Pitchess motions.[1] Sometimes the appeal asks that we review the trial court's refusal to conduct an in camera hearing; other times the appellant requests our review of such a hearing when the trial court has declined to order disclosure. Here, appellant Elbert Lane filed an affidavit that was found to be adequate, the trial court did conduct an in camera hearing, and disclosure of the officer's records was made. Nonetheless, Lane asks that we determine if the court went far enough. We do; it did. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the afternoon of March 29, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Rafael Rodriguez was conducting surveillance on the rooftop of a building in downtown Los Angeles, when he saw Lane enter a homeless shelter and exit shortly thereafter. After Lane had been standing in front of the shelter for a few minutes, a woman, later identified as Kim Green, approached him and handed him three bills of currency. Lane put the money in his jacket pocket and showed Green a substance in his hand that resembled rock cocaine. Lane wrapped the substance in a piece of paper or plastic and gave it to Green, who placed it in her jacket pocket. These observations were relayed to another officer, who detained Lane and Green shortly thereafter. The officer searched Green and found a white paper bindle in her jacket pocket that contained .07 grams of cocaine base.
Lane testified on his own behalf. Lane said Green was his friend and she had given him three $1 bills as repayment for a loan. Green then asked him for a cigarette, so he went inside the homeless shelter to look for one. He subsequently returned outside with a hand-rolled cigarette and gave it to Green. Lane admitted suffering prior felony convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, battery on a police officer with injury, and commission of a lewd act.
DISCUSSION
Prior to trial, Lane filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of complaints against Officer Rodriguez alleging illegal search or seizure, false arrest, perjury, dishonesty, writing of false police reports "and any other evidence of misconduct amounting to moral turpitude within the meaning of People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284 . . . ." The trial court found good cause for the request, and accordingly conducted an in camera hearing to examine the officer's personnel files and any citizen complaints filed against him. The court concluded that some of the documents were discoverable, and accordingly ordered the prosecution to produce them.
Lane does not allege any errors on appeal, yet he asks us to independently review the sealed record of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion. While the People do not challenge the trial court's finding that Lane established good cause for his request for discovery, they contend that our review of the hearing on the request is unnecessary because Lane does not expressly allege on appeal that the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. The People further contend that review should be denied because the trial court ordered the production of some documents.
Neither of the People's assertions is well taken. As Lane correctly notes, an express assertion of error would be meaningless because he has no way of knowing whether the court erred. Neither Lane nor his attorney was present at the in camera hearing, and the record of that hearing is filed under seal. Indeed, Lane's inability to review the record is the whole point of his request for our review. The People offer no authority for the proposition that an express allegation of error in this regard is essential to our review, and case law supports the contrary conclusion. (See, e.g., People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 398 [record of Pitchess hearing independently reviewed "[a]t defendant's request" without any reference to an allegation of error].) Nor does the fact that the trial court ordered some documents produced compel the conclusion that the court did not err in refusing to produce other documents. (See People v. Castain (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 138, 144.)[2]
We therefore grant Lane's request for independent review of the record of the Pitchess hearing.[3] Having reviewed the sealed reporter's transcript of the hearing, we conclude that the trial court followed the proper procedure and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order production of certain documents on the ground that they were not responsive to Lane's discovery request. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330; People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1232.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
COFFEE, J.
Marcelita Haynes, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Jeffrey Lewis, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
[2]To the extent the People argue that the absence of any objection by the respondent is a necessary predicate to appellate review of the documents examined by the trial in ruling on a Pitchess motion, the law is to the contrary. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1224.)
[3]We note that Lane's attorney could have obtained appellate review of the Pitchess hearing by filing a brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
