P. v. Carlsen
Filed 9/5/13 P.
v. Carlsen CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
TRISHA CARLSEN,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F065074
(Super.
Ct. No. BF140106A)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
Thomas M.
Singman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and
Christina Hitomi Simpson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant asks this court to
considered by the trial court during a Pitchess
hearing (Pitchess v. Superior Court
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)). We have conducted the requested review and
discerned neither procedural error nor abuse of discretion. The judgment will be affirmed.
FACTS
On January
9, 2012, a California Highway Patrol Officer conducted a traffic stop of a car
driven by appellant Trisha Carlsen. The
officer conducted field sobriety tests, which appellant failed to perform
satisfactorily. The officer searched
appellant and found a baggie containing .53 grams of methamphetamine. Appellant’s blood tested positive for
amphetamines and marijuana.
On January
30, 2012, an information was filed in Kern County Superior Court charging
appellant with possession of methamphetamine (count 1), misdemeanor driving a
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug (count 2) and being
under the influence of a controlled substance (count 3).
On April
20, 2012, appellant pled no contest to counts 1 and 2; count 3 was dismissed by
the People in the interests of justice.
On May 29,
2012, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on
probation for three years. She was
ordered to serve 45 days in jail, with leave granted to the probation
department to release her at any time to a residential alcohol/drug treatment
program.
DISCUSSION
Pertaining to the Pitchess
Proceedings Reveals Neither Procedural Error Nor Abuse of Discretion
background.
On March 8,
2012, appellant filed a Pitchess
motion to permit discovery and disclosure of the personnel records of a named
highway patrol officer. Appellant
requested any records pertaining to “lack of credibility.â€
On April 4,
2012, the court found there was sufficient cause to examine the records for
items of dishonesty only. It reviewed
the officer’s personnel records in camera.
The court did not find any discoverable information.
The
appellate record has been augmented with the files that were reviewed at the in
camera hearing and a settled statement.
procedural error nor abuse of discretion occurred below.
“A criminal
defendant has a limited right to discovery of a peace officer’s personnel
records. [Citation.] Peace officer personnel records are
confidential and can only be discovered pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043
and 1045.†(Giovanni B. v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 312,
318.) “A trial court is afforded wide
discretion in ruling on a motion for access to law enforcement personnel
records. The decision will be reversed
only on a showing of abuse of discretion.
[Citation.]†(
Cal.App.4th 161, 180.)
In this
case, the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of a
discoverable material. Neither
procedural error nor abuse of discretion occurred. (People
v. Yearwood, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at pp. 180-181.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Detjen, J.
