Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Van

P. v. Van

Filed 12/23/09 P. v. Van CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

TOAN QUOC VAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

E048243

(Super.Ct.No. RIF101294)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Patrick F. Magers, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Toan Quoc Van.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, and Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is the second appeal in this case, which involves a home invasion robbery that was thwarted before the defendants entered the home. Having been caught in the act, the defendants attempted to escape from the long arm of the law. Unable to escape, the defendants, Toan Quoc Van, Khoi Van Phan, Nelson Wynn, and Giang Huynh, were charged, tried and convicted. They appealed, and this court affirmed their convictions; however, we remanded the matter with directions to hold a new Pitchess[^{^[1]}] motion in conformance with the procedures described in People v. Guevara [(2007)] 148 Cal.App.4th [62,] at pp. 68-69. (People v. Toan Quoc Van, et al., Jul. 23, 2007, E037955 [nonpub opn.], p. 50.).

On remand, the trial court conducted two in camera hearings; one on December 7, 2007, and the one on January 25, 2008. According to the courts minute order, it found no disclosable information. The court thereafter reinstated the conviction. Defendant appeals, asking this court to review the record of the in camera hearing to determine if the trial court erred in refusing to disclose complaints made against the named police officers for dishonesty or use of excessive or unreasonable deadly force. The People agree that defendant is entitled to such a review. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228.)

After reviewing the sealed transcripts of the in camera proceedings, we conclude, as did the trial court, that the records contain no discoverable material pertinent to the defendants request. There was no error.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI

MILLER

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^{^[1]}Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

Description	This is the second appeal in this case, which involves a home invasion robbery that was thwarted before the defendants entered the home. Having been caught in the act, the defendants attempted to escape from the long arm of the law. Unable to escape, the defendants, Toan Quoc Van, Khoi Van Phan, Nelson Wynn, and Giang Huynh, were charged, tried and convicted. They appealed, and this court affirmed their convictions; however, we remanded the matter with directions to hold a new Pitchess[[1]] motion in conformance with the procedures described in People v. Guevara [(2007)] 148 Cal.App.4th [62,] at pp. 68-69. (People v. Toan Quoc Van, et al., Jul. 23, 2007, E037955 [nonpub opn.], p. 50.). On remand, the trial court conducted two in camera hearings; one on December 7, 2007, and the one on January 25, 2008. According to the courts minute order, it found no disclosable information. The court thereafter reinstated the conviction. Defendant appeals, asking this court to review the record of the in camera hearing to determine if the trial court erred in refusing to disclose complaints made against the named police officers for dishonesty or use of excessive or unreasonable deadly force. The People agree that defendant is entitled to such a review. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228.)
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.