Court Opinion

ID: 9374676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:03:23.616153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.424096
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/23/23 P. v. Torrico CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                    B318896

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                             Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. KA119913-01
         v.

JOAQUIN TORRICO, JR.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Carlos Dominguez, Judge. Conditionally
reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

     Robert A. Werth, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Gary A. Lieberman,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                 _______________________
       In his second appeal in this matter, Joaquin Torrico, Jr.
asks this court to review the in camera proceedings conducted by
the trial court pursuant to his motion for production of
documents under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531
(Pitchess), and to determine whether any discoverable documents
were not provided to the defense. We conclude the trial court
failed to conduct the appropriate inquiry during its in camera
hearing, requiring us to conditionally reverse the judgment and
remand for a new in camera hearing. We also agree with the
parties that Torrico must be resentenced due to recent changes in
sentencing law.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Torrico was tried and convicted of several criminal offenses
in 2020. Prior to trial, he filed a discovery motion seeking all
“complaints from any and all sources relating to acts of,
fabrication of charges, fabrication of evidence, fabrication of
reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause, perjury, dishonesty,
writing of false police reports, and any other evidence of
misconduct amounting to moral turpitude . . . against Detective
D. Lopez.” The trial court partially granted the motion, ordered
discovery of the officer’s personnel files concerning fabrication of
police reports only, and concluded that there were no records in
the officer’s files responsive to Torrico’s motion.
       In Torrico’s first appeal, we held the trial court defined the
category of discoverable documents too narrowly by ordering
discovery of documents involving only police report fabrication
when it should have ordered discovery of documents involving all
dishonesty. (People v. Torrico (Oct. 8, 2021, B305870) [nonpub.
opn.].) While we agreed the items the court had reviewed in
camera were not discoverable under the broader standard of

                                  2
dishonesty, we could not determine from the transcript of the
Pitchess hearing whether the custodian of records had produced
the officer’s complete files or only records relating to report
fabrication. (Ibid.) We conditionally reversed the judgment and
ordered a limited remand to determine whether the officer’s
personnel files included incidents falling into the general
category of dishonesty. (Ibid.) Specifically, we said, “If there are
no additional complaints in [the officer’s] file during the relevant
period other than those the court already reviewed and
considered as reported in the transcript of the Pitchess hearing
that is before us, then the court need not repeat its findings as to
the records it previously reviewed but should make it clear on the
record there are no complaints in the general category of
dishonesty.” (Ibid.)
       The trial court conducted its in camera hearing in March
2022 and concluded there was no discoverable information to
release. The trial court reinstated the original judgment and
Torrico again appealed. After our initial review of the matter, we
requested and received supplemental briefing from the parties on
two questions: “(1) What, if any, is the effect of the recent
amendment to Evidence Code section 1045, by Statutes 2021,
chapter 402 . . . , section 1, on the relevant time period for the
trial court’s in camera review of the officer’s files?” and “(2) Is it
proper for a trial court to take the custodian of record’s oral
description, or review a written summary, of item(s) in an
officer’s file during an in camera Pitchess hearing in lieu of
reviewing the actual item(s)?”

                                  3
                         DISCUSSION
I.     Pitchess Issues
       On a showing of good cause, a criminal defendant is
entitled to discovery of relevant documents or information in the
personnel records of a police officer accused of misconduct against
the defendant. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b).) Good cause for
discovery exists when the defendant shows both materiality to
the subject matter of the pending litigation and a reasonable
belief that the agency has the type of information sought. (City of
Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84.)
       “When a trial court concludes a defendant’s Pitchess motion
shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in
a law enforcement officer’s personnel files, the custodian of the
records is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially
relevant’ documents to permit the trial court to examine them for
itself.” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228–1229
(Mooc).) “Documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant’s Pitchess
request need not be presented to the trial court for in camera
review. But if the custodian has any doubt whether a particular
document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial
court. Such practice is consistent with the premise of Evidence
Code sections 1043 and 1045 that the locus of decisionmaking is
to be the trial court, not the prosecution or the custodian of
records. The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers
and for the record what other documents (or category of
documents) not presented to the court were included in the
complete personnel record, and why those were deemed
irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant’s Pitchess
motion.” (Id. at p. 1229.)

                                4
       At the time of the initial Pitchess hearing and the first
appeal, former Evidence Code section 1045, subdivision (b)(1)
excluded from disclosure any information about complaints or
conduct occurring more than five years before the conduct in the
case before the court. However, Senate Bill No. 16, signed by the
Governor on September 30, 2021, and effective January 1, 2022,
eliminated that time restriction. (Stats. 2021, ch. 402, § 1; see
People v. Montes (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1006.) The in
camera hearing on remand took place in March 2022, after
Senate Bill No. 16’s effective date. As Torrico and the Attorney
General agree, Senate Bill No. 16 applies here to remove the five-
year limitation on disclosure of items in the officer’s personnel
files.
       We have reviewed the transcript of the March 2022 in
camera hearing and conclude the judgment must be conditionally
reversed for the trial court to conduct a new Pitchess hearing for
two reasons. First, the custodian of records neither searched for
nor provided all potentially responsive items in the officer’s files.
Although the court and counsel for the Sheriff’s Department were
aware of the change in the law regarding the relevant time
frame, the custodian of records performed no new search or
review of the officer’s records and brought to the hearing only
those records that previously had been presented to the trial
court. The original custodian’s search covered only the five years
prior to the offenses, consistent with the law at the time. The
record reveals there existed records relating to this officer that
dated from before the five-year mark, but those documents had
not been within the scope of the initial search, and the custodian
appearing at the March 2022 hearing neither examined them for
potential relevance nor brought them to the court for the in

                                  5
camera hearing. When the court learned the custodian of the
records had neither conducted a thorough search nor brought to
court “all ‘potentially relevant’ documents to permit the trial
court to examine them for itself” (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at
pp. 1228–1229), the court should have required the custodian of
records to perform a new search for potentially responsive
documents consistent with the elimination of the five-year bar on
relevancy.
      Second, after fruitlessly attempting to determine the
relevance of the unproduced records based on a summary
document provided by the custodian of records,1 the court
excluded from review and disclosure information consisting of
complaints concerning the officer’s conduct solely because they

1      Initially reasoning that after Senate Bill No. 16 documents
from more than five years before the offense were no longer
categorically excluded from disclosure, the court reviewed a
search report that provided summary information about the
earlier records in the officer’s files and attempted to ascertain
based on that document whether the underlying information bore
any relationship to dishonesty. A court may not rely on a
custodian of records’ description or summary of potentially
relevant documents instead of examining them itself. “ ‘When a
defendant shows good cause for the discovery of information in an
officer’s personnel records, the trial court must examine the
records in camera to determine if any information should be
disclosed.’ ” (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 338, italics
added; see also People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015)
61 Cal.4th 696, 711, 722 [custodian of records obligated to bring
all potentially relevant documents to the trial court, which
“examines the personnel records in camera”].) Ultimately, the
court abandoned this inquiry and relied on the former five-year
relevancy bar to exclude information from disclosure.

                                6
occurred more than five years before the charged offenses.
Because as of January 1, 2022, information consisting of
complaints concerning an officer’s conduct were no longer
excluded per se from disclosure if they occurred more than five
years before the charged offenses, we agree with the parties that
limiting review based on the now-repealed five-year bar
constitutes error.
       Accordingly, we order a limited remand pursuant to the
procedures outlined in People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th
410, 423. We reverse the judgment conditionally and remand to
the trial court to conduct another in camera hearing on the
discovery motion, consistent with the amendments to Evidence
Code section 1045, subdivision (b), as to all records of incidents of
dishonesty. However, as we previously provided, the court need
not conduct a repeat review of the specific documents it reviewed
in the first in camera hearing, as we have previously determined
there was no error in concluding those complaints were not
discoverable. (People v. Torrico, supra, B305870 [nonpub. opn.].)
       If there is no discoverable information in the files, then the
trial court is ordered to reinstate the original conviction and to
resentence Torrico as set forth in Section II of this Discussion. If,
however, there is relevant discoverable information in the
officer’s files, Torrico should be given an opportunity to determine
if the information would have led to any relevant, admissible
evidence that he could have presented at trial. If Torrico is able
to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the denial of the
discovery, the trial court should order a new trial. If Torrico is
unable to show prejudice, then the conviction is ordered
reinstated, and Torrico shall be resentenced for the reason set
forth in Section II of this Discussion.

                                 7
II.   Sentencing Issues
       Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3) amended
Penal Code section 1170 to establish the middle term as the
presumptive term when a statute specifies three possible terms of
imprisonment, and to permit the court to impose a sentence
exceeding the middle term only when the aggravating
circumstances of the crime justify the imposition of a term of
imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts
underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the
defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at
trial.2 (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b)(1), (2).) We agree with the
parties that Torrico, whose convictions are not final, is entitled to
retroactive application of these ameliorative changes. (People v.
Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039 [“The People correctly
concede the amended version of section 1170, subdivision (b) that
became effective on January 1, 2022, applies retroactively in this
case as an ameliorative change in the law applicable to all
nonfinal convictions on appeal”]; People v. Jones (2022)
79 Cal.App.5th 37, 45.)

2      The trial court may, however, consider the defendant’s
prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified
record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a
jury. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b)(3).)

                                 8
       Torrico was sentenced to the upper term of four years on
count 1. When explaining why it chose the upper term sentence,
the court appeared to rely almost exclusively on the assertion
that Torrico convinced or permitted his children to give false
testimony at trial rather than accepting personal responsibility
for his conduct. We agree with Torrico and the Attorney General
that because this aggravating circumstance was not found true
by the jury or admitted by Torrico, he is entitled to be
resentenced due to the changes to Penal Code section 1170 made
by Senate Bill No. 567.
       Although Torrico mentioned Assembly Bill No. 124 (Stats.
2021, ch. 695, § 5.3) in passing in his opening brief, he did not
make any argument as to how its provisions applied to him. We
do not consider matters asserted perfunctorily and without
supporting argument. (People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th
142, 196.)
                          DISPOSITION
       The judgment is conditionally reversed, and we remand to
the trial court to conduct another in camera hearing on the
discovery motion, as described above, to determine whether there
are any discoverable complaints of dishonesty. If there is no
discoverable information in the officer’s files, then the trial court
is ordered to reinstate the original conviction and to resentence
appellant. If, however, there is discoverable information in the
officer’s files, appellant should be given an opportunity to
determine if the information would have led to any relevant,
admissible evidence that he could have presented at trial. If
appellant is able to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the
denial of the discovery, the trial court should order a new trial. If

                                  9
appellant is unable to show prejudice, then the conviction is
ordered reinstated, and appellant shall be resentenced.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                          STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                                10