THE PEOPLE v. LARRY ALEXANDER (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1

Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351.5) and sentenced to a total term of eight years in prison.   Appellant raised several claims in his prior appeal, but the claim pertinent to this appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his Pitchess motion without reviewing the personnel records of the two police officers who stopped him and arrested him.   We remanded with directions to the trial court to conduct an in camera review of complaints regarding one officer, but rejected appellant's other claims.

On remand, the trial court conducted the required hearing and found no discoverable material.   In accordance with our opinion, the trial court reinstated the original judgment and sentence.   Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends, and respondent agrees, that we should review the sealed transcript of the in camera proceeding in order to ensure that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion and followed the requisite procedure.

The trial court's decision regarding the discoverability of material in police personnel files is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.  (People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 670.)  “A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling ‘fall[s] “outside the bounds of reason.” ’  [Citation.]”  (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 714.)   The trial court's ruling here does not fall outside the bounds of reason.   We therefore affirm.

We note that the documents screened by the trial court were not made part of the record on appeal.   However, the reporter's transcript of the in camera proceeding indicates that the custodian of records stated for the record the contents of each document and did not omit any of the documents.  (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229.)   It was the court, not the custodian of records, that determined whether any documents in the personnel file contained relevant information.  (Cf. People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410, 415 [insufficient record when custodian did not produce entire personnel file and no record was made of personnel documents not produced];  People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 68 [same].)   The record on appeal therefore is adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.   Having reviewed the sealed reporter's transcript of the in camera proceeding, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no material was discoverable.

The transcript further indicates that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of a Pitchess hearing.   There was a court reporter present, and the custodian of records was sworn prior to testifying.   (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1228, 1229, fn. 4;  People v. White (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1340.)   The custodian of records complied with the requirement to bring all the records and submit them for the court to review and determine which documents were relevant.  (People v. Wycoff, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at pp. 414-415.)   We find no error or abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The underlying facts are not pertinent to this appeal and therefore are not set forth in this opinion..  FN1. The underlying facts are not pertinent to this appeal and therefore are not set forth in this opinion.

EPSTEIN, P. J. WILLHITE, J.