Filed 12/22/05 P. v. Contreras CA2/1

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION ONE

 

 

 

THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   ARMONDO CONTRERAS, JR.,   Defendant and Appellant.

B182519   (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA 048435)

 

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. J. Michael Byrne, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

________

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Roberta L. Davis and Daniel Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________

A jury convicted Armondo Contreras, Jr. of fleeing from the police while driving with willful disregard for persons or property. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) The trial court imposed a 16-month lower term sentence.

Contreras appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to discover police personnel records without holding an in-camera hearing. (Evid. Code §§ 1043, 1045; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) We agree, reverse the judgment, and remand for the trial court to hold a hearing. If the court finds no discoverable information, or, after disclosure of any such information, finds that Contreras has not shown prejudice, it should reinstate the judgment in its entirety. If the court finds that Contreras was prejudiced by the failure to disclose discoverable material, it should grant a new trial.

FACTS

At about 10:00 p.m. on July 28, 2004, Los Angeles Police Officers Thomas Holzer and Mark Stratton saw Contreras, who was driving alone in a maroon Lincoln, stop at a stop sign. The officers noticed that Contreras was not wearing a seat belt. They followed Contreras, who began driving unsafely in an apparent attempt to elude them. The officers activated their overhead lights and siren and pursued Contreras, but he failed to stop at two stop signs, drove at excessive speeds, and veered into lanes designated for oncoming traffic. Eventually, Contreras slowed down, jumped from the car while it was still moving, and ran off. The officers pursued him on foot but lost him in an apartment building. When, a short time later, they examined Contreras' car they discovered that it could be operated without a key, although it showed no sign of being tampered with. Inside the car, they found an open, still-cold can of beer. The officers' investigation also revealed that Contreras' car was registered to his father, who told the officers that Contreras was its primary driver.

At about 10:55 p.m., Contreras telephoned the police and reported that the car had been stolen. In response, Officers Holzer and Stratton went to two addresses Contreras provided, but one did not exist and Contreras was not at the second. The officers found Contreras at a third address he provided. They observed him standing outside with a group of people and recognized him as the driver despite his wearing different clothes. Contreras produced a set of keys to the car and told the officers, as he had the dispatcher, that his car could be operated without the keys. The officers smelled alcohol on Contreras' breath. They arrested him for fleeing from the police. Breath tests administered at 12:05 a.m. revealed that Contreras' blood alcohol level was .07 and .08 percent. A records check disclosed that he had two outstanding warrants. In several post-arrest statements, Contreras said that he had been drinking at a party where the police found him, discovered his car missing, and reported it stolen. He admitted knowing that he had an outstanding warrant and being on probation for driving under the influence. In defense, a partygoer testified that Contreras had been at the party from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Before trial, Contreras moved to discover the personnel records of Officers Holzer and Stratton. His written motion sought discovery of complaints against the officers for â€