P. v. Newburn
Filed 7/3/06 P. v. Newburn CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALVIN NEWBURN, Defendant and Appellant. | B178171 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA055178) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Andrew C. Kauffman, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Maxine Weksler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Susan Lee Frierson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Calvin Newburn appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of one count of possessing cocaine base for sale. Newburn contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct an in camera review of law-enforcement personnel files pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). He also contends the trial court erred in responding to a question the jury asked during deliberations, denying his new trial motion on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence and declining to strike pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) his prior serious or violent felony conviction for robbery.
Under the more relaxed standard for triggering the right to an in camera inspection articulated last year by the Supreme Court in Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011 (Warrick), Newburn is entitled to have the trial court review a portion of the law-enforcement personnel files he requested and determine if they contain relevant information that should be disclosed to him. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for the trial court to conduct the required in camera review. We find no other error.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Charges
Newburn was charged by amended information with one count of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), with the special allegation he had been personally armed with a firearm in committing the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)). The amended information also specially alleged Newburn had a prior serious or violent felony conviction for robbery that constituted a â€
