P. v. Reynolds

Filed 5/18/06  P. v. Reynolds CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County.  Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.

            Patricia L. Watkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Mathew Chan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            Appellant Eugene Harold Reynolds challenges his convictions for transportation of cocaine base and possession of cocaine base for sale on the grounds the People exercised their peremptory challenges in a racially biased manner and the trial court abused its discretion in denying release of the arresting officer's personnel file.  We will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

            On October 12, 2004, Deputy William Starr was on patrol in an area known for drug sales when he spotted Reynolds riding a bicycle.  When Reynolds saw Starr, Reynolds pulled something from his pocket and dropped it over a fence.  Starr detained Reynolds and then retrieved the dropped item.  The item turned out to be three napkins, one of which contained 19 bindles of cocaine base.  Reynolds also had $339 in cash in his pockets.

            The napkin containing the cocaine base was not preserved for trial, and Starr did not know what had happened to the napkin. 

            On January 6, 2005, Reynolds filed a motion for discovery pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.  The motion sought to discover any records in the possession of the Kern County Sheriff's Department involving Starr that pertained to mishandling of evidence, dishonesty, or moral turpitude.  On January 27, 2005, the trial court conducted an in camera review of Starr's personnel file and other documents produced by the custodian of records.  After review of the documents, the trial court determined there were no discoverable documents or information. 

            Jury selection began on February 16, 2005.  On February 17 the prosecutor used his sixth peremptory challenge to exclude an African-American male (Mr. W.) from the jury.  On February 18 the prosecutor used another peremptory challenge to exclude an African-American female (Ms. S.) from the jury.  Following the exclusion of Ms. S., Reynolds made a motion pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 and Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79.

            Reynolds asserted that there was no apparent reason to exclude either Mr. W. or Ms. S. from the jury, except for their race.  The prosecutor argued that Reynolds had failed to make a prima facie showing and the trial court agreed.  Excluding these two prospective jurors left only one remaining African-American in the jury pool and that person served on the jury. 

            The jury returned verdicts of guilty on February 23, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

I.            Wheeler/Batson Motion

            Reynolds made his Wheeler/Batson motion after the second African-American juror was excluded by peremptory challenge.  The prosecutor was not required to, and did not, offer any justification for his challenges because the trial court found that Reynolds had failed to establish a prima facie case.  Reynolds contends the trial court erred in denying his Wheeler/Batson challenge to the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges against Prospective Jurors Mr. W. and Ms. S.

In People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, the Supreme Court held that the use of peremptory challenges on the sole basis of group bias was prohibited by article I, section 16 of the California Constitution.  In Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. 79, the United States Supreme Court held that peremptory challenges based solely on race violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the defendant is a member of the race being challenged. 

            The proper analysis of a Wheeler/Batson motion is now well established.  â€