THE PEOPLE v. NICHOLAS BROWN (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

After the trial court denied Nicholas Brown's (defendant) motions under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden ) and Penal Code section 1538.5,¹ and found no relevant discovery pursuant to his motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974)

11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess ), defendant entered a no contest plea to possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)).   Defendant admitted a prior conviction.   The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years under various terms and conditions, including serving 365 days in jail.

Defendant appeals on the ground that the trial court erred by denying discovery of police records.   He asserts that review of the records is required.

FACTS

Since there was no trial, we glean the facts from the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence.   Officer Robert Harris (Harris) of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) received information on February 1, 2008, that an attempted murder suspect was at a specific address.   He and his partner, Officer Sotelo (Sotelo), conducted surveillance from their car and noticed that a large party was going on at that residence.   They saw the suspect, who was not defendant, exiting the residence as he talked on his cell phone.   Because of the number of partygoers, Harris called for backup, and 15 to

20 officers arrived.

When uniformed officers began approaching the residence, some of the partygoers started to run out the back.   Harris and an Officer Merrin (Merrin) ran to the house directly east of the party house because some of the partygoers were jumping the fence onto that property.   When the two officers opened the side gate to that property, they saw defendant running towards them on a walkway.   The officers identified themselves and illuminated defendant with their flashlights.   Defendant looked startled.   He turned around and reached toward his waistband.   When his hand came out he was holding a blue steel pistol.   He threw it over a cinder block wall into the adjoining yard.

Harris and Merrin told defendant and some other partygoers to lie face down on the ground.   Approximately one minute later, uniformed officers arrived to secure these individuals.   Harris and Merrin then climbed over the cinder block wall and found a blue steel semiautomatic pistol lying on the grass.   Merrin retrieved the pistol.

DISCUSSION

Before trial, defendant filed his Pitchess motion seeking discovery from the LAPD regarding complaints filed against Officers Merrin, Harris, Sotelo, and McBride.   The motion sought information relating to “acts of entrapping persons, misrepresenting or falsifying facts in an arrest and/or investigation report, fabricating evidence and/or planting evidence, false testimony, acts of dishonesty as well as the dates of the filing of such complaints.”   In support of his motion, defendant asserted his belief that Merrin fabricated the alleged violation in the arrest report and that Harris, Sotelo, and McBride endorsed the report's content.   The trial court granted the motion with respect to Harris and Merrin on the subject of false reports and planting evidence.

After an in camera hearing, the trial court stated it had spent 40 minutes in chambers examining the records of the two officers.   There was nothing discoverable on the pertinent subject matters, and the trial court denied the request to turnover records to the defense.   The trial court stated that everything it had read was irrelevant to defendant's proceedings.

Upon a showing of good cause, a defendant has a right to discover information from a police officer's personnel file that is relevant to the proceedings against the defendant.  (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226-1227 (Mooc );  Evid.Code,

§§ 1043, 1045, subd. (a).)  We review the court's ruling on a motion to discover personnel records for abuse of discretion.  (See People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.)

We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion.   The trial court's findings during its review, as reflected in the sealed transcript, are sufficient to permit appellate review of its rulings.  (See Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1229, 1232.)   The transcript of the in camera hearing contains a number for each complaint filed against each officer, the type of complaint, the trial court's summary of the events surrounding each complaint, and the trial court's ruling as to the relevance of the complaint to the issues on which discovery would be allowed.   Our independent review reveals no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings concerning disclosure.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. All further references to statutes are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise..  FN1. All further references to statutes are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.

_, P.J. BOREN _, J. ASHMANN-GERST