P. v. Orelana

Filed 7/20/06 P. v. Orelana CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Melvin D. Sandvig, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part with modification and directions.

Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Salvador J. Orelana.

Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jose A. Barcenas.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Jason C. Tran, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Jose Antonio Barcenas and Salvador Jose Orelana appeal from the judgment entered after a jury convicted them of selling rock cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) Both contend the trial court erred by denying their pre-trial Pitchess^[1] discovery motion (Evid. Code, §§ 1043, 1045) to obtain information about misconduct by some of the police officers involved in their arrest. We conclude the court erred by denying the motion as to Orelana, and conditionally reverse the judgment so a Pitchess review can be conducted. We affirm, however, as to Barcenas. We also modify the judgment to give Barcenas and Orelana each two additional days of pre-sentence conduct credits.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jose Antonio Barcenas and Salvador Jose Orelana were arrested in the late afternoon of November 29, 2004, as part of an undercover drug â€