1

Filed 12/ 8/14 P. v. G olson CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. VINCENT GOLSON, Defendant and Appellant. A139004
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC076981)

Defendant Vincent Golson appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of battery, domestic battery, and aggravated trespass

. On appeal, he asks us to review the transcript of in camera proceedings held pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior
Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 ( Pitchess ) to determine whether they show the trial court abused its discretion in determining that no further police personnel records were subject to discovery. We sh all affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND 1 Defendant was charged with felony stalking of Jane Doe (Pen. Code, 2 § 646.9
, subd. (a), count one), misdemeanor battery upon Jane Doe, with whom he had had a dating relationship (§ 243, subd. (e)(1), count two), misde meanor aggravated trespass (§ 602.5, subd. (b), count three), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242, count four). A jury found him not guilty on the felony stalking count and guilty on the three misdemeanor

1 The limited nature of the issue on appeal does not require us to recite the underlying facts.

2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

counts. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent se ntences of one year for counts two and three, with a concurrent six

- month sentence for count four. With credit for time served, defendant was released from custody.
Before trial
, defendant brought a Pitchess motion asking the trial court to examine
the personnel records of the police officer who arrested and questioned hi m. He also sought any further exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 ( Brady ). 3 He contende d the officer’s report deliberately distorted what defendant t old
the officer . Defendant sought discovery of any prior complaints against the officer involving, inter alia, dishonesty or deceit in the performance of his duty . In a supplemental declaration, defendant pointed out that he had received information that in 2011 the officer had been charged with a misdemeanor , although the charges had been dismissed, and that the officer had been subject to disciplinary proceedings. Defendant sought discovery of the police report of the officer’s arrest, as well as infor mation on any other complaints made against the officer. Pursuant to a court order, defendant received a copy of the police report. A hearing was held on defendant’s motion, and the trial court found there was a
sufficient basis to review the officer’s personnel records for evidence of acts of dishonesty. The court also stated that if it came across any further material subject to
disclosure under Brady , it would disclose that as well. After its in camera review of the records, the court found no furth er information was subject to disclosure pursuant to
Pitchess or Brady

. II. DISCUSSION Defendant asks us to review the transcript of the in camera proceedings and independently determine if the trial court followed the proper procedures. The statutory scheme for Pitchess motions “is set forth in Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1047 and Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7 and 832.8. When a defendant

3 In Brady , the United States Supreme Court held that “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment .

. . .” ( Brady
, supra , 373 U.S. at p. 87.)3

seeks discovery from a peace officer’s personnel records , he or she must ‘file a written

m otion with the appropriate court’ (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (a))

. . . . [¶] I f the trial court concludes the defendant has fulfilled [the] prerequisites and made a showing of good cause, the custodian of records should bring to court all documents ‘poten tially relevant’ to the defendant’s motion.” ( People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226 ( Mooc ). The trial court then examines these documents in camera, and
, subject to certain
limitation s , discloses to the defendant “ ‘such information [that] is relev ant to the subject

mat t er involved in the pending litigation.’ ” ( Ibid ., quoting Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (a).) In conducting this in camera review, the trial court must make a record that is adequate for appellate review. ( Mooc , supra , 26 Cal.4th at p

. 1229 ; People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62, 69.) To accomplish this, the court may either copy the
documents if they are not voluminous and place them in a confidential file, prepare a
sealed list of the documents it has review ed , or “simply stat e for the record what documents it examined” and seal that transcript. ( Mooc , supra , 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1229

– 1230.) On appeal, we review the record of the documents examined by the trial court and
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to disclose the contents of the personnel records. ( People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 .) We may make our determination by reviewing a transcript of the in camera proceedings. ( Herrera v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1159, 1163 .)
The record of the in camera proceedings does not indicate that the trial court copied the documents it reviewed, which it described as voluminous. However, in conducting its review, the trial court described the documents in sufficient detail to

perm it meaningful appellate review. (See People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 83 2

– 833.) We have reviewed the transcript and conclude the trial court followed the proper procedures and that it did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order further discl osure of the contents of the officer’s personnel file.
III. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.4 _________________________ Rivera, J.

We concur:

_________________________ Ruvolo, P.J.

_________________________ Reardon, J.