P. v. Vaughn

Filed 8/8/06 P. v. Vaughn CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Horan, Judge. Affirmed.

Linda Acaldo, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

Robert Vaughn appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. He claims the trial court erred in denying portions of his motion for discovery of the arresting officer's personnel records pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). He also asks this court to conduct an independent review of the sealed transcripts to determine whether any discoverable material was withheld from him. We agree with the trial court's denial of the motion as to items 4 and 5, but we disagree with the trial court's conclusion as to requested items 2 and 3. After an independent review of the sealed record, however, we find no prejudice from the denial of the requested discovery.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In the early morning of June 22, 2005, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs Jane Trejo and Andres Sendis were on patrol in the vicinity of a mobile home park on Otterbein Avenue in Rowland Heights. They were both in uniform and were traveling northbound in a marked patrol car.

Deputy Trejo saw defendant riding a bicycle southbound toward them. She made eye contact with defendant, who looked startled. Deputy Trejo recognized defendant from a contact the night before, when he was detained by other officers for a bicycle infraction. Defendant made an abrupt turn and began peddling northbound, away from the officers.

When the patrol car was alongside defendant, Deputy Trejo ordered defendant to stop. Defendant put his right hand into his right jacket pocket. Deputy Trejo ordered him to take his hand out of his pocket. Defendant did so, and threw a small, light colored plastic object over his head; it landed in some bushes to the left of defendant. Deputy Trejo detained defendant, and then recovered the object he had thrown. It was a bindle which contained .04 grams of methamphetamine.

Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine, with several prior conviction allegations. Prior to trial, defendant brought a Pitchess motion, seeking discovery of complaints against Deputy Trejo. The motion was granted in part, and denied in part. Following an in chambers meeting with the custodian of records for the sheriff's department, the court stated there were no records responsive to the court's order. Defendant proceeded to trial, and was convicted as charged. The court struck one of the prior convictions, and violated and terminated defendant's probation in a prior misdemeanor case. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction.

DISCUSSION

â€