P. v. Rhodes
Filed 6/3/08 P. v. Rhodes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. GRANT CHARLES RHODES, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B196012 (Super. Ct. No. 2004002176) (Ventura County) |
Appellant Grant Charles Rhodes was convicted of several felony counts including assault with a firearm upon a peace officer. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (d)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for 14 years. In 2003, we conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with directions to the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing on appellant's motion for in camera review of the personnel records of Deputy Sheriff Crone pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. We ordered the court to grant the requested discovery if the hearing revealed discoverable information bearing on the deputy's honesty which could lead to admissible evidence helpful to appellant in defense of the charge and otherwise to reinstate the original judgment and sentence.
On remand, the trial court reviewed the personnel records of Deputy Crone and determined there was no discoverable information. The court reinstated the original judgment and sentence, and appellant filed this appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter raising any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider.
Appellant submitted a supplemental letter brief and an addendum to his supplemental letter brief. Appellant contends that he is entitled to discovery of the records of both Deputy Crone. Appellant raises additional issues that were not timely raised in his appeal: (1) that he is entitled to the records of another arresting officer, Deputy Alvarez; (2) that the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting false testimony and disclosing substantive witness testimony in violation of a witness exclusion order; (3) that, three years after appellant was arrested, Deputy Alvarez pulled him into a holding cell and physically threatened appellant in violation of his civil rights; and (4) that appellant's trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they did not raise all of these contentions previously.
We have previously determined that appellant would be entitled to any discoverable information in Deputy Crone's file bearing on his honesty which could lead to admissible evidence helpful to appellant's defense. We have now independently examined Deputy Crone's personnel records in camera, and have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to disclose their contents. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330.) Appellant's remaining contentions were waived because they were not asserted in his opening brief on appeal.
Having reviewed the entire record, we are satisfied that no other arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Kevin J. McGee, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Susan Pochter Stone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
