1 

Filed 12/23/14 P. v. Casteneda CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(San Joaquin) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ANTHONY DAVID PERAZA CASTENEDA, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C075159 

(Super. Ct. No. SF122594A) 

 Defendant Anthony David Peraza Casteneda pleaded guilty to possession of 

methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) The trial court sentenced defendant 

to five years of probation, suspended imposition of sentence, and ordered defendant to 

serve 180 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant asks us to review the trial court’s in 

camera determination that one officer’s police personnel files did not contain any 
2 

discoverable materials. Because the in camera review was impermissibly perfunctory, 

we must conditionally reverse the judgment. 

BACKGROUND 

 Prior to entering into his plea agreement, defendant brought two discovery 

motions pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 seeking the 

personnel records of Stockton Police Officer Houston Sensabaugh and another law 

enforcement officer. The trial court found good cause to review Officer Sensabaugh’s 

personnel files for evidence of dishonesty. The court then conducted an in camera 

hearing with counsel for the City of Stockton. 

 The following is the relevant portion of the hearing on defendant’s motion to 

discover the personnel files of Officer Sensabaugh: 

 “THE COURT: We are in chambers on a Pitchess motion. Marcie Arredondo is 

here from the City Attorney’s office. It’s regarding Officer Sensabaugh, and it regards 

the issue of honesty and truthfulness, and did you find anything in the personnel files that 

would reflect on those issues? 

 “MS. ARREDONDO: No, Your Honor. 

 “THE COURT: We’ll note that for the record.” 

DISCUSSION 

 Defendant asks us to review the trial court’s ruling that there were no discoverable 

materials in the officer’s personnel records. 

 Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause. However, he points out 

that his appeal is directed to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence prior to his 

plea. Where a defendant’s Pitchess motion is “ ‘directed to’ ” the legality of a search, a 

challenge to the Pitchess ruling is cognizable on appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 

1538.5, subdivision (m), providing for review of suppression motions notwithstanding a 

guilty plea. (People v. Collins (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 137, 141, 148-149.) Accordingly, 
3 

we will consider defendant’s Pitchess claim to the extent it is “ ‘directed to the legality of 

the search.’ ” (Id. at p. 149.) The People do not oppose review. 

 To compel discovery of confidential materials in peace officer personnel files, a 

defendant must file an affidavit that establishes good cause in the form of a reasonable 

belief that the type of records requested are material to his or her defense and in the 

possession of the employing agency; only a relatively low threshold is necessary to 

compel discovery. (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019.) Upon a 

finding of good cause, the trial court must then review the records in camera and disclose 

“only that information falling within the statutorily defined standards of relevance.” (Id.

at p. 1019.) 

 Fundamental to the procedure under the statutory scheme which codifies Pitchess

is “the intervention of a neutral trial judge” to examine the records and determine what 

documents, if any, should be disclosed. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1227 

(Mooc).) “Documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant’s Pitchess request need not be 

presented to the trial court for in camera review”; however, the “custodian should be 

prepared 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 

Pitchess motion.” (Id. at p. 1229.) 

 “Absent this information, the [trial] court cannot adequately assess the 

completeness of the custodian’s review of the personnel files, nor can it establish the 

legitimacy of the custodian’s decision to withhold documents contained therein. Such a 

procedure is necessary to satisfy the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that ‘the locus of 

decisionmaking’ at a Pitchess hearing ‘is to be the trial court, not the prosecution or the 

custodian of records.’ ” (People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 69, quoting 

Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1229 [sworn statement of custodian that records did not 

contain potentially discoverable materials was insufficient to satisfy the trial court’s 
4 

obligation to review records; since custodian’s sealed list of reviewed documents was not 

available for appellate review, the trial court must conditionally reverse for new 

hearing].) 

 Here, the trial court failed to follow this procedure for proper Pitchess review. 

The representative for the City of Stockton did not present any documents for review, nor 

did the court question her about what documents or categories of documents were 

contained in the locations she reviewed. Rather, the trial court impermissibly deferred to 

the custodian’s judgment about whether disclosure was appropriate, and did not make a 

record of the documents that were subject to that determination. This leaves us unable to 

conduct any meaningful review on appeal. 

 Accordingly, we must conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for the trial 

court to conduct a new Pitchess hearing. The court must also make an oral record of 

what it reviews, obtain a list or log of the records from the agency and place that 

document in the court record, or place sealed copies of the agency records in the court 

record. (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1228.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is conditionally reversed. The cause is remanded to the trial court 

to permit the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the requested peace officer 

personnel records. If the inspection reveals relevant information, the trial court must 

order disclosure, allow appellant an opportunity to demonstrate prejudice, and order a 

new suppression hearing if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have 
5 

been different had the information been disclosed. If the inspection reveals no relevant 

information or if the inspection reveals relevant information, but that disclosure of the 

information does not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of the 

hearing would have been different, the trial court must reinstate the judgment of 

conviction and sentence. 

 DUARTE , J. 

We concur: 

 HULL , Acting P. J. 

 MAURO , J.