Filed 5/12/23 P. v. Ibarra CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY IBARRA,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B320100

(Super. Ct. No. VA155929)

(Los Angeles County)

Anthony Ibarra appeals a judgment following his no contest 

plea to possession for sale of a controlled substance, heroin

(Health. & Saf. Code, § 11351), a felony, after the denial of his 

motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial 

court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on 

probation for two years.

We conclude, among other things, that 1) the trial court

properly denied his motion to suppress evidence; but 2) in 

conducting an in camera review of police personnel records in 

response to Ibarra’s Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; Pen. Code, § 832.7; Evid. Code, § 1043 et 
2

seq.), the court did not disclose to the defense a relevant 

complaint against the officer. We conditionally reverse the 

judgment and remand with instructions.

FACTS

On January 6, 2021, Sheriff Deputy Alex Hernandez and 

his partner John Balarosan were on duty near a hotel. They saw 

Ibarra immediately walk away from a hotel room after he looked 

in their direction. Ibarra then threw an item away. The officers 

searched that area for that item and found a “bindle” containing 

a white substance resembling methamphetamine. 

The officers detained Ibarra and asked his permission to 

search his hotel room. Ibarra agreed and he signed a search 

entry waiver form. With his consent, the officers searched 

Ibarra’s hotel room. They discovered illegal controlled substances 

in his room.

Ibarra filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in 

the search. He claimed the officers searched the room without 

his consent. He claimed the signature on the consent to search 

form was not his. The trial court denied the suppression motion

finding the People had met their burden to show a lawful search.

Ibarra filed a Pitchess motion. The trial court found the 

defense had established good cause to review the officers’ 

personnel records. After conducting an in camera review, the 

court released some records for review by the defense.

DISCUSSION

The Motion to Suppress Evidence

Ibarra contends the trial court erred by denying his motion 

to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) He claims the 

evidence shows the police conducted a search without his consent.
3

The trial court is the fact finder on a motion to suppress. 

(People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 673.) It decides the 

credibility of witnesses; it weighs the evidence and resolves 

evidentiary conflicts. (Ibid.) We do not decide the credibility of 

witness testimony or reweigh the evidence.

Searches conducted without a warrant are “unreasonable 

per se under the Fourth Amendment unless it falls within one of 

the ‘specifically established’ ” exceptions to that requirement. 

(People v. Woods, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 674.) “It is ‘well settled 

that one of the specifically established exceptions to the 

requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search 

that is conducted pursuant to consent.’ ” (Ibid.) 

Sheriff Deputy Hernandez testified Ibarra immediately 

began to walk away from a hotel room when he saw the officers. 

Ibarra appeared to be throwing trash away. The officers detained 

him for a “littering investigation.” Ibarra told the officers that he 

tossed away “a loaded syringe” containing drugs. He agreed that 

the officers could search him “for any additional contraband.” 

When Hernandez searched the area where Ibarra tossed the 

item, he found a “bindle” containing a white substance 

“resembling methamphetamine.” Ibarra said it was his.

The officers asked Ibarra if they could search his hotel 

room. Ibarra agreed and he signed a “search entry waiver form.” 

In a search the officers found illegal drugs.

Ibarra testified the officers handcuffed him and put him in 

a patrol car. When they asked his permission to search the hotel 

room, he said “no.” He said the signature on the search consent 

form was not his. Ibarra admitted that he signed a citation at 

the police station.
4

Ibarra notes the trial court said, “Deputy Hernandez 

testified credibly; Mr. Ibarra testified credibly.” He claims this 

undermines the court’s ruling on the motion. But the court made 

these comments before it ruled on the motion. A “court’s 

comments” may “never be used to impeach the order or 

judgment.” (Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. 

Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 591.) Such “comments in oral 

argument may never be used to impeach the final order.”

(Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 624, 

633.) The reason for this is that the court “retains inherent 

authority to change its . . . findings of fact . . . at any time before 

entry of judgment . . . .” (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 

170 Cal.App.4th 229, 268.) 

The trial court found the signature on the citation, that 

Ibarra admitted he signed, was “similar” to the signature on the 

search waiver form. Both begin with what appears to be a large

crude-shaped letter “A” slanting to the left. It found the evidence

“boils down” to a “credibility call[].” The court said the “search 

waiver was completed before the search.” The People note the 

court rejected the defense claim that the officers had fabricated 

the signature. The court found the People met their burden to 

prove “the search was lawful.” Consequently, it ultimately 

resolved the conflict in the evidence against Ibarra. Ibarra has 

not shown the court erred by denying the motion. (People v. 

Woods, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 673.) 

The Pitchess Motion

Ibarra filed a Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court, 

supra, 11 Cal.3d 531; Pen. Code, § 832.7; Evid Code, § 1043 et 

seq.) to discover relevant information from the police officers’ 

personnel records. 
5

“A criminal defendant, on a showing of good cause, is 

entitled to discovery of information in the confidential personnel 

records of a peace officer when that information is relevant to 

defend against a criminal charge.” (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 

Cal.4th 172, 176.)

In the declaration in support of the motion, defense counsel 

declared that officers Hernandez and Balarosan had a “custom of 

engaging in misconduct” that included fabricating evidence and 

conducting searches without a defendant’s consent. The trial 

court granted the motion and held an in camera review of the 

officers’ personnel records. The court ordered certain information 

from these records to be disclosed to the defense, including a 

complaint by a woman who said the officers “illegally searched 

her residence after she was arrested.”

But there was another complaint that was not disclosed to 

the defense. In complaint No. 254917, filed on October 23, 2020, 

a man claimed one of the officers “entered his home, without any 

legal justification, while he was away.” This complaint was 

relevant to the defense claim that the officers had a pattern of 

searching homes without consent from defendants. It should 

have been disclosed to the defendant. Consequently, the 

judgment must be conditionally reversed. (People v. Gaines,

supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 180-182.) 

DISPOSTION

The judgment is conditionally reversed. The trial court on 

remand shall disclose complaint No. 254917 to the defense and 

hold a hearing where the defendant shall have the burden to 

show “a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the 

evidence been disclosed.” (People v. Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at 

p. 182; People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232.) If the 
6

defendant meets that burden, the judgment shall be vacated; if 

not, the court must reinstate the judgment. (Id. at p. 176.) 

Depending upon what the court determines after its review on 

remand, it may wish to reconsider its ruling on the Penal Code 

section 1538.5 motion. We leave this decision to the trial court’s 

discretion.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
7

Lee W. Tsao, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and John Yang, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.