Filed 5/15/13 P. v. Taylor CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
>
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH RICHARD TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant. | F063217 (Super. Ct. No. F10905950) |
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Donald Penner, Judge.
Dale
Dombkowski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Louis M. Vasquez,
Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant,
Joseph Richard Taylor, was found guilty after a jury trial of misdemeanor
§ 241, subd. (c), count 1)
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] and resisting an executive officer, a felony
(Pen. Code, § 69, count 2). The
jury did not find that appellant had personally used a knife. In a bifurcated
proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had
served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5,
subdivision (b) and had four prior serious felony convictions within the
meaning of the three strikes law.
At the
appellant’s request to strike three of his prior serious felony convictions due
to the remoteness of the convictions.
The court found one prior prison term enhancement true. The court sentenced appellant to the upper
term of three years, doubled to six years pursuant to the three strikes law,
and added a term of one year for the prison term enhancement, for a total
sentence of seven years.
Prior to trial, after reviewing the
records of the two arresting officers, the court denied appellant’s request for
discovery of the officers’ personnel records.
On appeal, appellant seeks independent
review by this court of information in the arresting officers’ personnel
files pursuant to Pitchess v.
Cal.4th 1216 (Mooc).
FACTS AND IN CAMERA HEARINGS
At 3:15
p.m. on November 19, 2010, a fight erupted at the Coalinga State Hospital. Officer Adrian Enriquez could see the fight
about 40 feet from his kiosk with other officers. Enriquez and Officer John Rodriguez responded
to break up the fight.
Appellant
was nearby another fight and looked very excited. He was facing another man with his hands up
and his fists clenched. Officer Sandoval
ordered appellant to the ground, but he did not comply and Sandoval used pepper
spray on appellant. Appellant’s fists
remained clenched. Appellant was holding
a black, pointed object sticking three to four inches out of his hand. Rodriguez ordered appellant to drop his
weapon, but appellant failed to comply.
As
appellant ran down a hallway, he struck an individual in the abdomen who
immediately fell to the ground. As appellant
was running toward Enriquez, other officers were yelling at appellant to stop
and get on the ground. When appellant
was five feet away, Enriquez noticed a shiny object protruding from appellant’s
hand. Appellant’s hands were clenched in
fists. Enriquez ordered appellant to
drop the weapon and get on the ground.
Appellant kept advancing toward Enriquez.
Appellant
lifted his fists toward Enriquez, who continued to order appellant to drop his
weapon and get on the ground. When
appellant came within two feet of Enriquez, Enriquez began to fear for his own
safety and expanded his baton into a defensive position. Appellant then lunged at Enriquez.
Enriquez struck appellant’s
shoulder near the bicep with his baton.
Appellant remained on his feet, ignoring commands to get on the ground,
and continued to advance on Enriquez.
Enriquez hit appellant with his baton a second time in the left forearm
and appellant fell to the ground and was taken into custody.
Appellant testified that another
patient swung at him when he was carrying his glasses, pen, and an iPod. As appellant ran away, he was immediately hit
on the left side of his head by Enriquez.
Appellant was searched, but no weapon was found.
Appellant filed a
the personnel files of officers Enriquez and Rodriguez for information
concerning prior acts of violence, fabrication, false arrest, citizen
complaints, and all information relevant to credibility and veracity. The parties stipulated at the
cause for the trial court to review information concerning excessive force,
fabrication of reports, or questions concerning officer veracity. The trial court reviewed the relevant documents
in camera and ruled that none of the information reviewed by the court should
be disclosed.
On December 18, 2012, this court
issued an order noting that the officers’ personnel records reviewed by the
trial court had not been placed in the appellate record under seal. We ordered the trial court to obtain the
relevant records and to prepare a settled statement explaining what it reviewed
and to produce the appropriate records under seal.
On January 17, 2013, Judge Donald
Penner conducted a review of the records that were originally produced for the
stating the court had copied two documents it originally reviewed and was
sending them under seal to this court.
The sealed record was filed with this court on February 26, 2013.
DISCUSSION
Appellant
seeks independent appellate review of the trial court’s ruling on his discovery
motion pursuant to Pitchess, supra,
11 Cal.3d 531. Such review has been
endorsed by the California Supreme Court.
(People v.
15 Cal.4th 795, 827.) Appellant contends
he is entitled to independent review by this court of the personnel records
made available to the trial court.
Appellant’s motion to the trial court sought information, if any, of
past incidents in which there were complaints against Officers Enriquez and
Rodriguez involving excessive force, fabrication of reports, or questions
concerning officer veracity.
A trial
court’s ruling on a motion for access to law enforcement personnel records is
subject to review for abuse of discretion.
(Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 330.)
We have undertaken that review, following the procedures set forth in
(Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1230-1232.) There were no claims against either officer
involving excessive force, fabrication of reports, or questions concerning
officer veracity. After reviewing the
transcripts of the in camera hearings, as well as the personnel files of the
officers, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court concerning its
review of the officers’ personnel files and its ruling that no records were
discoverable. (Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 330; Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th
at p. 1232; People v.
1536.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] The
jury acquitted appellant of felony assault of a peace officer (Pen. Code,
§ 245, subd. (c)), but convicted him in count 1 of the lesser included
misdemeanor offense.
