P. v. Melendez
Appellant Alfredo Melendez, Jr., was convicted by jury trial of assaulting police officers, exhibiting a firearm, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he contests whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for an in camera review of certain police personnel records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, and its statutory codification in Evidence Code sections 1043 et seq. He raises a related issue claiming that if his motion was properly denied on procedural grounds, then his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The respondent argues that there was no ineffective representation because trial counsel did all he was supposed to do in filing and pursuing the Pitchess motion, and that the motion was properly denied on the merits. We conclude that appellant satisfied the plausible scenario requisite for limited discovery as described by our Supreme Court in Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1026 (Warrick). Court therefore shall reverse the judgment of conviction with directions and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Comments on P. v. Melendez