P. v. Mancilla
Filed 5/24/13 P. v. Mancilla CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
RICHARD MANCILLA,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B239566
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
Nos. BA382452 &
BA386152)
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior
Court of
County,
Craig
J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas Kevin Macomber, 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, Scott A. Taryle and Stacy S. Schwartz, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Appellant Richard Mancilla
appeals from the judgment entered in superior court case No. BA382452 following
his plea of no contest to unlawful
firearm activity (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and from the judgment
entered in superior court case No. BA386152 following his plea of no contest
to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) with
an admission in each case that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen.
Code, § 667, subd. (d)), following the denial of a suppression motion (Pen.
Code, § 1538.5) in each case. The court
sentenced appellant to prison for 32 months in case No. BA386152, with a
consecutive term of 16 months in case No. BA382452. We affirm the judgments.
The
record in case No. BA382452 reflects that on March 24, 2011,
appellant possessed a firearm, i.e., a sawed-off rifle, having suffered a prior
felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. The record in case No. BA386152 reflects
that on June 30, 2011,
appellant possessed a firearm, i.e., a handgun, having suffered a prior felony
conviction for assault with a deadly
weapon.
Appellant requests
that this court conduct an independent
review of (1) the in camera hearing on his Luttenberger motion and (2) the sealed transcript of the
additional information should have been disclosed.
1. The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant’s
Luttenberger Motion.
a. Pertinent Facts.
The
nonconfidential record reflects as follows.
On October 19, 2011, in superior court case No. BA382452, the court
acknowledged receipt of a “motion . . . pursuant to [People v. Luttenberger].â€
motion as a “motion for pretrial discovery of information about confidential
informant.†(Capitalization
omitted.) The trial court stated the
motion was supported by a declaration from appellant’s trial counsel and that
the motion had been “served†on the court on October 5, 2011. The motion, sealed, is part of the record on
appeal.
On
October 19, 2011, the court stated it had reviewed the motion and supporting
declaration. The court later stated, “.
. . I am making a preliminary finding that [appellant’s trial counsel] has made
a sufficient showing for this court to conduct an in camera review of the
sealed portion of the search warrant.â€
The court indicated it would give the People an opportunity to respond
to the court’s finding, but asked that the [prosecutor] “have the requisite
material, namely the sealed portion of that warrant with her in court and the
investigating officer present as well should my preliminary hearing [sic]
become my final ruling.†The matter was
eventually continued to November 8, 2011.
On
November 8, 2011, the court called the case for an in
motion. The reporter’s transcript for
November 8, 2011, reflects a transcript of the in camera hearing was sealed and
lodged with the clerk. On December 28,
2011, appellant’s trial counsel commented to the trial court that it had
granted his Luttenberger motion but “denied [appellant’s counsel] access
to any of the statements.â€
b. Analysis.
Appellant requests
that this court conduct an independent review of the transcript of the November 8, 2011 in camera hearing on
the Luttenberger motion. He asserts that, in the motion, he “sought
the substance of the informant’s [information] to the officers, plus any
inducements offered to the informant in exchange for the information, and any
materials related to the informants reliability†and the court denied the
motion.
We
have reviewed appellant’s sealed Luttenberger
motion and the sealed transcript of the November 8, 2011 in camera
hearing. We have also reviewed the
search warrant and its supporting affidavit, including the sealed portion of
the affidavit.
title="">[2] We are satisfied the trial court properly denied appellant’s
motion to unseal the sealed portion of the affidavit. Moreover, we conclude it was not reasonably
probable appellant could prevail on any motions to quash and/or traverse the
warrant and suppress evidence; therefore, the court properly denied any such
motions. (Cf. People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 975-977.)
2. The
Trial Court Fulfilled Its Responsibilities Under Pitchess.
a. Pertinent
Facts.
The
nonconfidential record reflects as follows. On August 9, 2011, appellant filed,
in superior court case No. BA386152, a pretrial discovery motion pursuant to
information in the personnel files of Los Angeles Police Officers Bryan Delavan
and Jose Pena, officers who detained appellant in connection with case
No. BA386152.
On
August 30, 2011, the court ruled there was good cause to conduct an in camera
hearing as to “as to these two officers with respect to any information
pertaining to their honesty, truthfulness, false police reports. Within that umbrella.†The reporter’s transcript of the September 1,
2011 proceedings reflects a transcript
of the in camera Pitchess proceedings was sealed and lodged with the
clerk. The minute order printed March 7,
2012, pertaining to September 1, 2011 proceedings reflects that, on the latter
date, a Pitchess hearing was conducted in chambers, a custodian of
records was present, the court “review[ed] the file,†and the court found
discoverable information. The minute
order also reflects the court ordered the custodian of records to provide the
discovery to appellant by September 7, 2011.
There is no dispute the custodian did so.
b. Analysis.
Appellant asks this
court to review the sealed record pertaining to his Pitchess motion to determine whether the trial court properly ruled
there was no additional discoverable information.
Trial
courts are granted wide discretion when ruling on motions to discover police
officer personnel records. (
827; People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 832.)
We have reviewed the contents of the sealed transcript of the September
1, 2011 in camera Pitchess
hearing. The transcript constitutes an
adequate record of the trial court’s review of any document(s) provided to the
trial court during the in camera hearing, and said transcript fails to
demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion to the extent it ruled
there was no additional discoverable information to be disclosed from the
personnel files of Delavan and Pena. (
1216, 1228-1230, 1232.) The trial court
fulfilled its responsibilities under Pitchess.
The
judgments in superior court case Nos. BA382452 and BA386152 are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KITCHING,
J.
We concur:
CROSKEY, Acting P. J. ALDRICH, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
People v. Luttenberger (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1 (Luttenberger).
title="">[2] Pursuant
to this court’s April 9, 2013 order, Deputy Attorney General Stacy S. Schwartz
delivered the sealed portion of the affidavit to this court on May 9,
2013. The court then reviewed in camera
said sealed portion of the affidavit, then immediately returned it to Deputy
Attorney General Schwartz.
