Filed 10/26/21 P. v. Kanas CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plainti ff and Respondent,

v. ADAM JOHN KANAS, Defendant and Appellant. G058847
(Super. Ct. No. 16WF1821)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Marlene Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Lise Jacobso n and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 Defendant Adam John Kanas was convicted of murder and two counts of driving under the influence of drugs. The only truly contested issue at trial was whether
he was under the influence at the time he drove. Based on several misstatements in a
search warr ant affidavit, defendant moved to review certain categories of personnel records relating to the responding office r pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974)
11 Cal.3d 531 ( Pitchess ) . The court granted the request but found no discoverable
documents. We agree with defendant that he is entitled to review of the trial court ’ s ruling under Pitchess . Having undertaken this review, we find no error and therefore affirm the judgment.

I
FACTS As relevant to this appeal, on the morning o f August 15, 2016, d efendant ’ s Chevy Tahoe , driving at freeway speed s , crashed into another car on the freeway. That car was stopped in traffic, and the collision killed a 10

- year

- old girl and injur ed the
driver , her father, and his other child.

C alifornia H ighway P atrol (CHP) Officer Todd Steaffens was dispatched to
the scene of the collision and arrived at about 9:26 a

. m

. He observed that defendant

“ seemed confused about the whole thing ” and “ out of it. ” Defendant made several comments, including “‘ accidents happen all the time ’” and “‘ I guess two cups of coffee

weren ’ t enough. ’” He did not seem to understand the gravity of the collision.

Steaffens did not observe any injuries to defendant, but his pupils were
constricted and he was lethargic. A Los Angeles County arson investigator, who had been certified as an emergency medical technician earlier in his career, was driving to
work when he came upon the accident scene and pulled over to assist. H e testified
defendant ’ s eyes were “ pinpoint

. ” A CHP officer who was a certified Drug Recognition Expert at the time testified defendant was lethargic but coherent with slow and slurred3

speech. A motorist who stopped to help also observed defendant ’ s eyes as “ dilated ” and

“ bulging. ” Steaffens believed defendant was under the influence and placed him under

arrest. At the station, defendant ’ s speech was slow and slurred, and he fell asleep while talking to officers at one point. Defendant told officers th at he took 75 milligrams of Trazadone the previous night, but said he did not feel the effects of the medication. He
told Steaffens he slept for eight hours and had break fast before starting his drive.

Defendant was taken to the hospital when he said he had head, neck, and lower back pain. His blood was drawn at 1:10 p

. m

.

Steaffens subsequently filled out and signed a search warrant affidavit. It included numerous errors, including that he had been conducting a traffic stop and had observed the car driving, when neither of those had happened. The affidavit also named another individual as the driver, in addition to other misstatements that did not reflect the incident at issue. The search warrant was issued, resulting in a second blood draw at 3:10
p

. m

. Toxicology results from both blood draws indicated the presence of numerous prescription drugs in def endant ’ s system, including alprazolam, carisoprodol, meprobamate, oxycodone, oxymorphone , and acetaminophen

. Alprazolam, carisoprodol, and meprobamate are central nervous system depressants and muscle relaxants. Oxycodone is a pain relief medication that could cause confusion, sedation, and drowsiness. Oxymorphone was in the same family of drugs and had the same effects. The amounts of oxycodone and oxymorphone exceeded the average range of therapeutic dosages. The parties later stipulated that defenda nt had pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of drugs in 2015 and had been placed on probation. His plea agreement included an ad visement pursuant to People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290 , that driving while impaired is dangerous and could lead to a murder charge.4 Defendant was charged with second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) , 1 and two counts of driving under the influence of drugs causing bodily injury with one prior (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (e)), with an allegation defendant ca used great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) , as to the Vehicle Code violations. Two prior convictions were also alleged.

Prior to trial, defendant moved for discovery of Steaffens ’ s personnel records pursuant to Pitchess . The motion requested various materials relating to , among other things, “ dishonesty, false arrest, perjury, writing false police reports, writing of
false police reports to cover incorrect procedure, fabrication of charges, fabrication of evidence, fabr ication of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause, illegal search/seizure, planting or concealing of evidence, false or misleading internal reports

. ” The court found good cause and granted the motion. After its in camera review, the court
stated in o pen court that it had found nothing to disclose.

At the conclusion of trial, a jury found appellant guilty of all charges and
the great bodily injury enhancements true . The court vacated one of the driving under the influence counts while retaining the g reat bodily injury enhancement connected to that
count. The court sentenced defendant to a total of 24 years to life.

II
DISCUSSION
Under Pitchess , a defendant may bring a motion for disclosure of certain relevant information in the personnel files of p olice officers by showing good cause for discovery and how it would support a defense to the charge against him. ( §§ 832.7, 832.8; Evid. Code, §§ 1043

- 1045 ; Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011,
1018

- 1019.)

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.5 Once a defendant has made a showing of good cause, “ the trial court must examine the records in camera to determine if any information should be disclosed. [Citation s .] The court may not disclose complaints over five years old, conclusions drawn during an investigation, or facts so remote or irrelevant that their disclosure would
be of little benefit. ” ( People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 424.) To facilitate the

court ’ s review, “ the custodian of records should bring to court all documents ‘ potentially
relevant ’ to the defendant ’ s motion. ” ( People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 122 6 .) Following a review of the documents in chambers, and “ [s]ubject to statutory exceptions
and lim itations

. . . the trial court should then disclose to the defendant ‘ such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation. ’” ( Ibid. )
Pitchess rulings are reviewable for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Rivera (201 9) 7 Cal.5th 306, 338.)

Defendant contends that he is entitled to appellate review of the in camera proceeding, and we agree. Defendant requested an order from this court to the CHP directing it to transmit the underlying materials to this court for revi ew

. W e denied the
motion

. (See People v. Mooc , supra , 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1229

- 1230 .)

To the extent the trial court retained any documents related to the Pitchess
motion , we treated the motion as one to augment the record and granted it. We received
a clerk ’ s affidavit stating the documents had not been retained. The court ’ s on

- the

- record description of the documents during its in camera review, however, is more than sufficient for our purposes.

During the in camera hearing, the representa tive from the CHP stated under oath that she had brought all potentially relevant records and a complete and thorough search had been made for the records. The court reviewed the materials carefully , one at a time , and discussed the nature of each documen t on the record. Based on our review of
the court ’ s findings that no discoverable materials existed , we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion. We find no error.6 III
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

FYBEL, J.