Filed 3/23/18 P. v. Camarillo CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICARDO SANCHEZ CAMARILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068457

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1500667)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, and Amanda E. Casillas, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
This second appeal in this case by defendant and appellant, Ricardo Camarillo, follows this court’s conditional reversal of the judgment in People v. Camarillo (Feb. 23, 2017, E068457) [nonpub. opn.] (Camarillo I), and remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct a new Pitchess in camera hearing.
In Camarillo I, defendant appealed from the judgment entered following jury convictions for making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422; count 1) and resisting an executive officer, a sheriff’s deputy (Pen. Code, § 69; count 2). Defendant admitted a prison prior enhancement. (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of seven years in state prison. Defendant appealed on the grounds that (1) the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior criminal threats incident, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his criminal threats conviction, and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats. We rejected these contentions but found the trial court had not properly conducted a Pitchess in camera hearing.
On remand, the trial court held additional Pitchess hearings on May 17 and 22, 2017. The trial court found that none of the documents it reviewed in camera were discoverable and reinstated defendant’s conviction and sentence. Defendant appeals these Pitchess findings and orders, requesting this court to review the most recent Pitchess proceeding to determine whether the trial court complied with proper Pitchess procedures. After reviewing the May 2017 Pitchess proceedings and confidential documents presented at the hearings, we conclude the trial court meticulously complied with proper Pitchess procedures and appropriately ordered that none of Deputy Torres’s confidential records were discoverable.
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
We incorporate the facts from our previous related opinion, Camarillo I, from which we provide the following brief factual summary.
On January 30, 2015, about 1:27 p.m., Deputy Torres responded to a call from Brian Souza. Souza reported that defendant was living in a trailer parked near Souza’s property, causing problems to the public. He was known to carry a knife. When Deputy Torres confronted defendant, he became verbally and physically combative. At one point defendant yelled at Deputy Torres, “I’m going to kill you.” Deputy Torres attempted to calm him down. Defendant took a fighting stance with fists raised and said, “I’m going to kill you. When I count down to one, I’m going to kill you.” Deputy Torres called for immediate backup assistance. He feared for his safety. He was alone with defendant in a rural area, and did not know if defendant had a knife.
As defendant was counting down, Deputy Torres lunged at defendant, grabbed defendant by the shoulders, and threw him to the ground. Deputy Torres fell to the ground, grabbed defendant by the head and pushed him to the ground, face down. Defendant tried to get up, punch Deputy Torres in the face, and jab his eyes. Defendant hit Deputy Torres in the corner of his eye. Deputy Torres started punching defendant in the face while defendant continued to resist. Deputy Torres tried to hold down defendant while defendant flailed his arms and tried to hit Deputy Torres’s face. Other bystanders, including Souza, ran to Deputy Torres’s assistance, pushed defendant down and held him down. Deputy Conwell arrived and handcuffed defendant. At the jail, during intake, Deputy Collie evaluated defendant and determined he was under the influence of methamphetamine.
III
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Pre-Camarillo I Procedural Background
The following procedural background predating Camarillo I is taken verbatim from Camarillo I, supra, E064392 [at pp. 8-11].
“Defendant filed a pretrial Pitchess motion requesting records and information from Deputy Torres’s personnel file, including evidence of, and complaints against Torres of: ‘excessive force, aggressive conduct, unnecessary violence, unnecessary force, false arrest, false statements in reports, false claims of probable cause, or any other evidence of or complaints of dishonesty by Deputy A. Torres.’ Defendant specifically requested the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons who had filed such complaints. Defendant’s Pitchess motion also requested, not only complaints within the past five years under Evidence Code section 1045, but also disclosure of complaints occurring more than five years under the due process clause and defendant’s rights to a fair trial and equal protection. The prosecution filed opposition.” (Camarillo I, supra, E064392 [at pp. 8-9].)
“The trial court found good cause to hold an in camera Pitchess hearing, to review Torres’s personnel records. The custodian of records for the Sheriff’s Department (COR) and counsel representing the Sheriff’s Department attended the in camera Pitchess hearing. After conducting the in camera hearing, the court stated in open court that it had determined that nothing was releasable. The sealed transcript of the Pitchess hearing indicates the COR brought documents to the in camera hearing but the trial court did not look at any of them. The trial court concluded there were no relevant records to be produced based on the representations of the COR and counsel for the Sheriff’s Department.” (Camarillo I, supra, E064392 [at pp. 9-10].)
“Because none of the records produced at the initial Pitchess hearing were included in the record on appeal, this court ordered on October 4, 2016, the trial court to augment the record by providing this court with the documents or copies thereof reviewed at the Pitchess hearing on May 5, 2015. In response to this court’s order to augment the record, the trial court conducted an in camera hearing on November 15, 2016. The same COR and attorney who attended the May 5, 2015 Pitchess hearing, appeared at the November 15, 2016 hearing. Immediately after the in camera hearing on November 15, 2016, the trial court stated in open court: ‘So today we had another in camera hearing, where we went over that document [(the transcript of the May 5, 2015 hearing?)] just to make sure that it was accurate, and we all agreed it was accurate. And we are now going to send that sealed hearing to the Court of Appeals according to their order. [¶] And I ordered—we had another in camera hearing today, and I ordered a transcript of that hearing to be prepared, and to be included with what we’re sending to the Court of Appeals.’ Nothing, other than the sealed reporter’s transcript of the in camera hearing was provided to this court.” (Camarillo I, supra, E064392 [at pp. 10-11].)
B. Camarillo I
During defendant’s Camarillo I appeal, defendant requested this court to independently review the trial court’s in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion, to determine whether the trial court correctly denied the release of any of the requested documents. We concluded in Camarillo I, based on the transcript of the Pitchess in camera hearing, that the COR complied with the Pitchess requirements. The COR brought records to the Pitchess hearing that were potentially responsive to defendant’s Pitchess request and the COR was “‘prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant’s Pitchess motion.’” (People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 68.) The COR informed the court it had brought to the hearing documents that the COR doubted were relevant.
We concluded in Camarillo I, supra, E064392, at page 19, that “the trial court did not conduct a sufficiently thorough inquiry or ‘review’ of the documents produced. Such review should have entailed actually examining the documents brought to the Pitchess hearing, particularly those discussed as potentially relevant, because the trial court, not the prosecution or the custodian of records shall determine whether under Pitchess the records are discoverable. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229; Evid. Code, §§ 1043, 1045.)” In addition, the trial court was required to make a record of what documents it examined before ruling on the Pitchess motion. If the documents produced by the custodian were not voluminous, the court could have photocopied them and placed them in a confidential file. Alternatively, the court could have prepared a list of the documents it considered, or simply stated for the record what documents it examined. (Mooc, supra, at p. 1229; Camarillo I, supra, E064392 [at pp. 19-20].)
Because the trial court did not make an adequate record of the documents brought to the Pitchess hearings on May 5, 2015 and November 15, 2016, this court concluded defendant’s ability to receive a meaningful review of the trial court Pitchess proceedings and ruling was compromised. (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1230; Camarillo I, supra, E064392 [at p. 20].) We therefore conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new Pitchess hearing in which the proper procedures were to be followed, in accordance with Mooc, at pages 1227 through 1231 and People v. Guevara, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 69. (Camarillo I, supra, E064392 [at p. 2].)
C. Post-Camarillo I Procedural Background
On May 17, 2017, following conditional remand of this case, the trial court conducted a new in camera Pitchess hearing, as instructed in Camarillo I. A second, follow-up in camera hearing was held on May 22, 2017. The hearings were recorded. The same COR and counsel who represented the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (Counsel) at the previous Pitchess hearings, attended the in camera Pitchess hearings on May 17 and 22, 2017. The COR was placed under oath and produced the same documents previously presented in 2015. At the May 17, 2017, hearing, the COR and Counsel described in detail, on the record, the documents produced. The same judge who conducted the previous Pitchess hearings in 2015 and 2016, conducted the Pitchess hearing on May 17, 2017.
The record reflects that the trial judge reviewed the records presented, and discussed them with Counsel and the COR to determine whether they were relevant and releasable. Although the trial court concluded there were no relevant, releasable records, in an abundance of caution, the court ordered copies of the documents to be made in the event defendant filed an appeal and this court wanted to review the documents. The trial court set a hearing on May 22, 2017, for the purpose of Counsel and the COR providing the trial court with copies of the records to be held under seal. Because the trial court found that there were no discoverable documents, the court ordered the previous judgment of conviction and sentence reinstated.
On May 22, 2017, Counsel and the COR attended the Pitchess hearing, during which the trial court granted defendant’s Pitchess motion and held an in camera Pitchess hearing. During the hearing, the COR provided the trial court with copies of the records previously reviewed in camera on May 17, 2017. The trial court once again described the documents, and ordered them sealed and preserved with the transcripts of the Pitchess hearings. The court further modified the May 17, 2017, order to reflect the following: “The Court orders that all documents and reporters transcript[s] submitted to the Court during in camera hearing[s] be sealed and held by this Court until the Appeals process has been completed.” Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the May 17, 2017, order.
IV
PITCHESS MOTION
Defendant filed the instant appeal for the sole purpose of requesting this court to review the trial court Pitchess proceeding on May 17, 2017, to ensure the trial court complied with Mooc and disclosed all, if any, relevant complaints of misconduct against Deputy Torres. The People agree in their appellate respondent’s brief that this court may conduct an independent review of the trial court’s in camera Pitchess hearings on May 17 and 22, 2017, and the sealed transcripts and confidential documents presented at the hearings.
Under Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531, “a criminal defendant has a limited right to discovery of peace officer personnel records in order to ensure ‘a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information.’” (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1037, fn. 3; in accord, Chambers v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 673, 679.) In 1978, the California Legislature codified Pitchess motion privileges and procedures through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045. (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 81, fns. omitted; Chambers, supra, at p. 679.) The trial court is vested with broad discretion when ruling on a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of police officer personnel records. (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.) We review a trial court’s Pitchess motion rulings for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330.)
Based on our independent, in camera review of the sealed record, which includes the in camera Pitchess hearing transcripts and documents presented at the Pitchess hearings on May 17 and 22, 2017, we conclude the trial court properly reviewed the documents produced by the COR and adequately described and discussed on the record the documents. We also conclude none of the produced documents constitute relevant discoverable Pitchess material.
Finding no disclosable evidence in the sealed record provided to this court, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to release any of Deputy Torres’s confidential records from the sealed record reviewed by this court and the trial court. Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to the release of any of Deputy Torres’s confidential records, and the reinstated judgment is affirmed.
V
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON
J.

We concur:


RAMIREZ
P. J.


McKINSTER
J.