Court Opinion

ID: 9908881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 23:02:01.406749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:34.503611
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/11/23 Riverside County Sheriff’s Dept. v. Superior Court CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO

 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
 DEPARTMENT,
                                                                         E082406
          Petitioner,
                                                                         (Super.Ct.No. SWF2300469)
 v.
                                                                         OPINION
 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

          Respondent;

 CHANCE WILLIAM MORRIS,

          Real Party in Interest.

         ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Bonnie M. Dumanis,

Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant

to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Petition granted.

         Ferguson, Praet & Sherman, and Steven A. Sherman for Petitioner.

                                                             1
       No appearance for Respondent.

       Steven L. Harmon, Public Defender, and Joseph J. Martinez, Deputy Public

Defender, for Real Party in Interest.

                                     INTRODUCTION

       Petitioner Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (sheriff’s department) seeks a

writ of mandate compelling the superior court to vacate its order granting real party in

interest’s pretrial discovery (Pitchess)1 motion and enter a new order denying the motion.

After reviewing the sheriff’s department’s writ petition, this court invited respondent and

real party in interest (Morris) to file a response. Morris filed a response conceding the

sheriff’s department is entitled to relief. We therefore grant the petition and issue a

peremptory writ in the first instance directing the superior court to vacate its order

granting Morris’s Pitchess motion and enter a new and different order consistent with this

opinion.

                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       In April 2023 a 911 call requesting assistance for a mentally ill adult resulted in a

lengthy standoff between numerous Riverside County Sheriff’s deputies and Morris.

Stemming from his actions during the incident, the People charged Morris in a felony

complaint with criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422 subd. (a)), vandalism with damage of

$400 or more (Pen. Code, § 594 subd. (a)), and resisting or delaying a peace officer (Pen.

Code, § 148 subd. (a)(1)). October 5, 2023, Morris filed a Pitchess motion seeking the

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

                                              2
personnel records of the investigating deputy. The motion was noticed for

October 19, 2023, and served by mail with an internal postage stamp dated

October 6, 2023.

       On October 11, 2023, petitioner filed an opposition on grounds of timeliness and

requested the trial court deny the motion on this basis. At the hearing, the trial court

granted the motion finding substantial compliance with the statutory notice requirements

and holding the right to effective assistance of counsel outweighed any failure to comply

with notice.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

       “Writ review is appropriate when the petitioner seeks relief from a discovery order

which may undermine a privilege or a right of privacy, because appellate remedies are

not adequate to remedy the erroneous disclosure of information. [Citation.]

Additionally, writ review of discovery orders is appropriate to establish general

guidelines for the lower courts.” (California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000)

84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1018-1019.) Although writ reviews of discovery orders are

typically reviewed for abuse of discretion, when not reaching the merits of the discovery

order, but instead evaluating the application of notice provisions to a particular case, it

amounts to a question of law, and thus is reviewed de novo. (City of Tulare v. Superior

Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 373, 380.)

                                              3
                                       DISCUSSION

       In 1978, the California Legislature codified the procedures by which a criminal

defendant may seek to compel discovery of evidence in a law enforcement officer’s

personnel file through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and

Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045. (Garcia v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th

63, 69-70.) In enacting these procedures and protections, the Legislature sought to

balance a defendant’s right to a fair trial with the strong privacy interest of law

enforcement officers in their personnel records. (Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117

Cal.App.4th 1079, 1085.) One protection the Legislature established is the notice

procedure requiring “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least

16 court days before the hearing . . . [h]owever, if the notice is served by mail, the

required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar

days.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

       Here, the sheriff’s department argues Morris failed to comply with the statutory

notice requirement articulated in Evidence Code section 1043 and Code of Civil

Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), thus making the motion procedurally flawed and

warranting denial. Morris concedes this position. As such, it is appropriate to grant the

relief requested. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1241.) While

petitioner also argues Morris failed to comply with the requirements of Evidence Code

section 1046, we need not to reach this issue, as the notice requirement is dispositive.

                                               4
                                        DISPOSITION

       Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the respondent superior court to

vacate its October 19, 2023 order granting Morris’s Pitchess motion and enter a new and

different order consistent with this opinion. When this decision becomes final, the stay of

proceedings in the trial court shall be lifted.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                               MILLER
                                                                                         J.
We concur:

McKINSTER
                 Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                            J.

                                                  5