P.v. Delgadillo
Filed 6/14/13
P.v. Delgadillo CA1/5
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A136897
v. (
Super.
Ct.
No. H45927)
WILLIAM DELGADILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
_______________________________________/
This case is before us on appeal for
the second time following a conditional reversal and remand for a new
v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; People
v. Delgadillo (Mar. 29, 2012, A129750 [nonpub. opn.].) In his second appeal, appellant William
Delgadillo asks this court to review the sealed record on his
trial court complied with our remand order and whether it erred by denying his
request for discoverable information.
We examined the sealed transcript of the in
the court examined at the hearing. We
conclude the court appropriately exercised its discretion in ruling there was
no relevant, discoverable information to disclose. We affirm with directions to the court to
correct its sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment to reflect
that the court sentenced appellant on October 5, 2012, not September 10, 2010.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
We incorporate the facts and procedural history of our
prior opinion. (People v. Delgadillo (Mar. 29, 2012, A129750 [nonpub. opn.].)
A jury convicted appellant and a codefendant of
bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)) on an Alameda County Sheriff’s
deputy and he appealed.
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] We concluded the trial court had not made an
adequate record of the documents produced, if any, by the custodian of records
and erred by failing to require the custodian of records “‘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
v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229) (Mooc).)
We conditionally reversed the judgment. Our remand order provided:
“The judgment is conditionally reversed. The cause is remanded to the trial court with
directions to hold a new in camera Pitchess
hearing in conformance with the procedures described in this opinion. If the trial court finds there are
discoverable records, it must order their disclosure to defendants, allow
defendants an opportunity to demonstrate prejudice, and order a new trial if
prejudice is demonstrated. If the court
concludes that there is no discoverable information, or that there is
discoverable information but defendants cannot establish that they were
prejudiced by the denial of discovery, the court is directed to: (1)
restructure defendants’ sentences in accordance with section 1170.1,
subdivision (g); (2) redetermine defendants’ presentence custody credits; (3)
strike either the second or third prior prison term findings made against Delgadillo;
and (4) prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a copy of the
amended abstract to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.â€
On remand, the trial court held an in camera
custodian of records under oath. The
custodian of records presented the complete files of both sheriff’s
deputies. (§ 832.5.) In the presence of the custodian and her
counsel, the court reviewed the files, summarized contents of the documents it
reviewed, and placed them in a sealed folder.
After the in camera hearing, the court stated: “I confirm my previous rulings, there were no
disclosable or discoverable events on either deputy regarding integrity or
excessive force. . . . I attempted to do it in compliance with the order [I]
received from the appellate court. . . . I did order copies of documents
reviewed be made, [and] placed in a confidential file for further appellate
review down the road.â€
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] On October 5, 2012, the court sentenced
appellant to state prison.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the in camera hearing on appellant’s
trial court reviewed at the hearing to determine whether it properly ruled on
the discoverability of information contained in the relevant files of the two
sheriff’s deputies involved in the incident.
We conclude the court appropriately exercised its
discretion in ruling there was no relevant, discoverable material to be
disclosed. In compliance with our remand
order, the court conducted an in camera hearing at which the custodian of
records was placed under oath and presented the complete files of both
sheriff’s deputies involved in the incident (§ 832.5). At the in
camera hearing, the court examined and thoroughly described the
documents and placed them in a sealed folder for our review. (Mooc,
supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1229.) Upon finding no relevant, discoverable
information, the court properly denied appellant’s Pitchess motion. (
410, 418-423.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed and the superior court is directed to correct its
sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment to reflect the court
sentenced appellant on October 5, 2012 rather than on September 10, 2010. The court is further directed to send a
certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the
_________________________
Jones,
P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Simons, J.
_________________________
Bruiniers, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Unless
otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Appellant’s codefendant is not a party to
this appeal.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] The
court clarified that it also examined the deputies’ files for disclosable or
discoverable events on “veracity.â€
