legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Pina
Defendant Jermaine Pina, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison serving a term for murder, was charged with being a prisoner in possession of a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a).[1] It was also alleged that he had suffered five prior strike convictions within the meaning of section 1170.12. He made a Pitchess[2] motion seeking to discover a broad array of documents in the personnel files of the two correctional officers who had been involved in the discovery of weapons in his cell. The trial court narrowed the scope of documents to be produced to those relating to the officers veracity or dishonesty. The custodians of record charged with reviewing the two respective officers personnel files for responsive documents produced no documents from the files, each independently having concluded that none existed that were responsive. Based on the absence of responsive documents as represented by the custodians, the trial court concluded that no such documents existed and denied the Pitchess motion.
While Court reject defendants first and third claims, Court nevertheless conclude that his claim concerning the Pitchess procedure employed by the trial court has some merit. Accordingly, Court conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for a new Pitchess hearing.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale