P. v. Belton

Filed 2/7/07  P. v. Belton CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Mark  Mooney, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Ryan  M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

            Ronald Belton appeals from the reinstatement of the judgment following remand by this court (People v. Belton (Jan. 30, 2006, B182313) [nonpub. opn.]), after his conviction by jury of possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and the finding that he had sustained a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§  1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)).^[1]

            Following his conviction and the imposition of a four-year sentence, appellant appealed from the judgment, contending that the trial court erroneously denied his motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 for disclosure of the personnel records of Los Angeles Police Officer Francis Boateng.  Respondent conceded.  We conditionally reversed the judgment, remanding the matter with directions to the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing to review Officer Boateng's personnel records for discoverable information with respect to the officer's veracity.  We directed that if such review revealed no discoverable information, the judgment was to be reinstated.

            On remand, the trial court conducted an in camera review of complaints lodged against Officer Boateng and of his personnel records for allegations of misconduct related to fabrication or falsity.  The trial court found no discoverable material and reinstated the judgment.

            Appellant requests that we review the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing to determine whether the trial court correctly ruled that there was no discoverable material.  We do so to determine whether the trial court made an adequate record of the documents it reviewed and whether, after reviewing those documents, it abused its discretion in ruling that there was no discoverable material.  (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232.)

            Our review of the sealed transcript establishes that the trial court made an adequate record of the documents it considered, describing the nature of each complaint and other documents, and that it properly exercised its discretion in determining that none of the complaints or documents were relevant to the officer's veracity.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment as reinstated by the trial court is affirmed.

            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                                                __________________, P. J.

                        BOREN

We concur:

_____________________, J.

    ASHMANN-GERST

_____________________, J.

    CHAVEZ

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.

^[1]           We take judicial notice of the record and of our opinion in People v. Belton, supra, B182313.  (Evid. Code, §§  452, 459.)