Filed 8/28/13 P. v. Ledesma 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

DONOVAN JOSEPH LEDESMA, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

F065098 

(Super. Ct. Nos. VCF254604D, 

VCF246387) 

OPINION

THE COURT* 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. 

Kalashian, Judge. 

 Candace Hale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Carlos 

A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

-ooOoo- 

 

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J. 
2 

 In case No. VCF254604D, a jury convicted appellant, Donovan Joseph Ledesma, 

of first degree burglary (count 1/Pen. Code, §§ 459 & 460, subd. (b));1 attempted home 

invasion robbery (count 2/§§ 664 & 211); robbery (count 3/§ 211); and assault with a 

deadly weapon (count 4/§ 245, subd. (a)). The jury also found true a great bodily injury 

enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in counts 3 and 4 and a personal use of a weapon 

enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in count 4. In a separate proceeding, appellant 

admitted a serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)) and allegations that he had a 

prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). 

On June 5, 2012, the court sentenced Ledesma to an aggregate term of 17 years: 

the middle term of four years on count 1, doubled to eight years because of Ledesma’s 

prior strike conviction; a concurrent six-year term on count 2 (the middle term doubled); 

a consecutive two-year term (one third the middle term of three years doubled) and a oneyear great bodily injury enhancement (one third of the three-year enhancement term) in 

count 3; a stayed six-year term on the substantive offense and stayed great bodily injury 

and arming enhancements in count 4; a five-year serious felony enhancement; and a 

consecutive one-year term (one third the middle term of three years) in case No. 

VCF246387. 

On appeal, Ledesma: 1) asks us to conduct a Pitchess2 review, and 2) contends 

that his abstract of judgment contains a clerical error. We will conduct the requested 

review, correct Ledesma’s abstract of judgment, and affirm the judgment. 

FACTS

 On July 4, 2011, around dusk, Ledesma and two other men forced their way into 

an apartment in Visalia. Before leaving, the three men fought with the two occupants of 

the apartment, striking them with a bat. 

 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

2 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. 
3 

 Later that evening, Ledesma and the two men approached a man on the street from 

behind, struck him with a bat, knocking him unconscious, and took several items from 

him, including a cell phone. 

 At the time of these incidents, Ledesma was on probation for a robbery conviction 

that arose out of an incident on December 23, 2010 (case No. VCF246387). 

DISCUSSION

The Pitchess Motion 

 On January 13, 2012, Ledesma’s codefendant filed a Pitchess motion to discover 

information relating to complaints against Officer Kenneth Smythe, including the names, 

addresses, and telephone numbers for all persons who have filed complaints against the 

officer. On January 19, 2012, Ledesma joined in the motion. 

 On February 24, 2012, the trial court found good cause to review the requested 

records but following an in camera review found there were no discoverable records.3 

Under Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pages 537-538, and Evidence Code sections 

1043 and 1045, a defendant may file a motion for discovery of certain personnel records 

concerning police officers, when those records are material to the defense of a pending 

criminal prosecution. Upon a proper showing of good cause by the defendant, the court 

is required to review the personnel records in camera and order disclosure of appropriate 

records. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1219-1220.) Here, the court 

conducted that review and did not order disclosure of any records to Ledesma or his 

codefendant. The court, as required, ordered the record of its in camera review, and the 

records themselves, sealed. 

 

3 Officer Smythe worked as an investigator for the Tulare County District 

Attorney’s Office prior to working for the Visalia Police Department. During the in 

camera hearing, the trial court examined records from the police department and the 

district attorney’s office. 
4 

On this appeal, Ledesma requests this court conduct its own review of the in 

camera hearing and of the personnel records to determine whether the trial court abused 

its discretion in determining that no records were discoverable. (See People v. Hughes

(2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330.) Respondent concurs that such review is appropriate in the 

present case. 

We have reviewed the reporter’s transcript of the in camera hearing of February 

24, 2012, and the records of Officer Smythe, which were submitted to the trial court 

under seal. Based upon such review, we conclude there is nothing in the officer’s sealed 

file that is relevant to the matters Ledesma sought to discover. Further, based on our 

review of the sealed reporter’s transcript of the in camera hearing, we conclude the trial 

court properly discharged its duty with respect to Ledesma’s motion. 

Ledesma’s Abstract of Judgment 

 Ledesma contends his abstract of judgment erroneously indicates the five-year 

serious felony enhancement on count 1 was imposed pursuant to section 667.5, 

subdivision (a)(1). Respondent concedes. We agree although we found additional errors 

in the abstract. 

 An appellate court may correct an abstract of judgment that does not accurately 

reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 

Cal.4th 181, 185.) 

 In case No. VCF246387, Ledesma was convicted by plea of second degree 

robbery on March 3, 2011. However, Ledesma’s abstract of judgment erroneously 

indicates in section 1 that he was convicted in that case on April 20, 2012. 

 Section 2 of Ledesma’s abstract of judgment states that section is for listing 

enhancements found to be true that are tied to specific counts. Arming enhancements are 

enhancements that are tied to particular counts. (People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 

Cal.App.3d 181, 195-196.) Section 2, however, erroneously fails to list the arming 

enhancement the court stayed in count 4. 
5 

 Additionally section 3 is for listing enhancements for “prior convictions and 

prison terms,” such as serious felony enhancements. Section 3 indicates the trial court 

imposed an enhancement of five years pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (a)(1) and a 

serious felony enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1) that was stayed. 

However, these entries are incorrect because the court imposed only one enhancement for 

“prior convictions and prison terms,” i.e., a serious felony enhancement, and it did not 

stay that enhancement. 

DISPOSITION

 The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment that: 1) 

indicates in section 1 that in case B (No. VCF246387) Ledesma was convicted of second 

degree robbery on March 3, 2011; 2) in section 2 lists the arming enhancement in count 

four that the court stayed; and 3) in section 3 lists only the unstayed, five-year serious 

felony enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1) the court imposed in this 

matter. The trial court shall also forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of 

judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the 

judgment is affirmed.