P. v. Eleby
Filed 9/19/06 P. v. Eleby 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. AL LARRY ELEBY, Defendant and Appellant. | B189958 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA250172) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Judith L. Champagne, Judge. Affirmed.
Marylou Hillberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
We review this case for a second time. A jury convicted Al L. Eleby of multiple counts of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest arising from two separate melees with law enforcement officers. He was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 17 years.
In his first appeal from the judgment, Eleby contended the trial court erred in failing to conduct an in camera review of police personnel files pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. We reversed the judgment and remanded to the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the requested personnel files for relevance with respect to complaints concerning the use of excessive force and incidents of dishonesty.[1]
As a result of the in camera review, the trial court found no relevant complaints and reinstated the judgment of conviction. The defense objected on the ground the in camera review was not conducted within 60 days after issuance of the remittitur in violation of Eleby's due process and speedy trial rights.[2] The trial court denied the motion, concluding there was either no delay or at most a two-day delay, and in any event Eleby had suffered no resulting prejudice.[3] This appeal followed.
We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
After examination of the record counsel filed an â€
