Opinion ID: 2599880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pitchess Discovery Motion (Lewis)

Text: Lewis argues that the trial court wrongly denied his motion to discover information in police personnel files under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305 ( Pitchess ). He insists the error had the additional legal consequence of violating his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and that it violated his right to compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment. Because [a] party cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct ( Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765), the compulsory process claim is forfeited. ( Ibid. ) We also find no state law error. Representing himself, Lewis filed two motions to discover information in the personnel files of several investigators, including Detectives Richard Aldahl and Jerry Lee Brooks. Both times, Lewis alleged that the detectives were involved in a conspiracy with Mizell to steal $10,000 and to murder him. He claimed they attempted to murder him by using excessive force during his arrest that would provoke him into defending himself, and that would allow them to apply lethal force in return. He also alleged that the officers were violent men generally, and that they were conspiring to frame him for murders he did not commit. In Lewis's first Pitchess motion, filed on April 18, 1991, he attached what appears to be a photograph of himself when he was booked for the murders. (He claims it shows he was beaten  a circumstance we do not discern from copies of the photograph in the record.) Also attached to Lewis's motion were photocopies of newspaper articles reporting allegations or episodes of police misconduct in unrelated cases. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on May 31, 1991. The court denied the motion because Lewis failed to include a police report, as statutorily required. (See Evid.Code, § 1046.) On June 4, 1991, Lewis filed a second Pitchess motion. This time he included the required police report among the attachments, and excluded the booking photograph. The hearing on the second motion occurred on July 19, 1991. The trial court indicated that it had carefully reviewed the moving papers. Ultimately, it found no prima facie evidence of a police conspiracy, and no basis for an in camera review of the requested personnel records. The court viewed the discovery request as a fishing expedition, and said it was miserably supported. We review the trial court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. ( Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531, 535, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305.) None appears. Lewis did not show that a police conspiracy to murder or frame him could or might have occurred. ( Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016, 29 Cal. Rptr.3d 2, 112 P.3d 2; see id. at p. 1026, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 112 P.3d 2.) Lewis's moving papers alleged one or more grandiose conspiracies to frame and murder him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Lewis did not meet the standard for permitting discovery of information from police personnel files.