P. v. Cornelius
Filed 7/28/06 P. v. Cornelius CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANFORD CHARLES CORNELIUS, Defendant and Appellant. | A111934 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. S511403) |
Following a jury trial, Sanford Charles Cornelius was convicted of possessing heroin. After the court found Cornelius eligible for sentencing under Penal Code section 1210.1 (Proposition 36), he was sentenced to a three year probationary term. On appeal, Cornelius challenges the denial of his Pitchess (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) motion for disclosure of certain information in the police department personnel files of the two arresting officers. We affirm.
On July 11, 2005, at about 4:20 p.m., two uniformed Oakland police officers approached Cornelius while he was sitting on a low retaining wall and holding an open, half empty bottle of an alcoholic beverage. Cornelius did not get up as the officers approached. One officer saw Cornelius open his left hand and drop a clear plastic baggie to the ground. Immediately recognizing that the baggie appeared to contain heroin, the officer retrieved it from the sidewalk, and arrested Cornelius. A later analysis revealed there was heroin in the brown chunky material found in the baggie.
Before trial, Cornelius filed a Pitchess motion, seeking to discover any citizen complaints against the two arresting officers limited to acts of â€
