Filed 1/23/18 P. v. Melendez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

VICTOR MIKE MELENDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074798

(Super. Ct. No. BF163532A)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John S. Somers, Judge.
Jyoti Malik, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Ryan B. McCarroll and Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), appellant and defendant Victor Mike Melendez (defendant) pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and was sentenced to a three-year jail term. On appeal, defendant contends this court should independently review the police officer’s personnel file examined by the trial court pursuant to defendant’s motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) to determine whether any materials were withheld improperly from disclosure. The People do not object. Because our independent review of the police officer’s personnel file at issue reveals no relevant documents or information, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to disclose any information from the file. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of any evidence or complaints of: “(1) false statements in reports, (2) fabrication of witness testimony in reports, (3) false testimony, (4) falsification of probable cause, (5) acts involving moral turpitude, and (6) any other evidence of or complaints of dishonesty[] by Officer Carson Puryear” (i.e., the officer who made the traffic stop resulting in the discovery of the subject methamphetamine). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for an in camera hearing, conducted an in camera review of Puryear’s personnel file, and determined the file contained no discoverable information. The court subsequently denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and defendant entered his no contest plea.
On appeal, the court may conduct an independent review of the transcript of the in camera hearing and the records reviewed by the trial court to determine whether any personnel records were improperly withheld. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232.) Our review of the sealed personnel records “reveals no materials so clearly pertinent to the issues raised by the Pitchess discovery motion that failure to disclose them was an abuse of Pitchess discretion.” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.