Court Opinion

ID: 9394215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 18:03:27.120255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.875508
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/12/23 P. v. Ibarra CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No. B320100
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. VA155929)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANTHONY IBARRA,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      Anthony Ibarra appeals a judgment following his no contest
plea to possession for sale of a controlled substance, heroin
(Health. & Saf. Code, § 11351), a felony, after the denial of his
motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial
court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on
probation for two years.
      We conclude, among other things, that 1) the trial court
properly denied his motion to suppress evidence; but 2) in
conducting an in camera review of police personnel records in
response to Ibarra’s Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; Pen. Code, § 832.7; Evid. Code, § 1043 et
seq.), the court did not disclose to the defense a relevant
complaint against the officer. We conditionally reverse the
judgment and remand with instructions.
                                FACTS
       On January 6, 2021, Sheriff Deputy Alex Hernandez and
his partner John Balarosan were on duty near a hotel. They saw
Ibarra immediately walk away from a hotel room after he looked
in their direction. Ibarra then threw an item away. The officers
searched that area for that item and found a “bindle” containing
a white substance resembling methamphetamine.
       The officers detained Ibarra and asked his permission to
search his hotel room. Ibarra agreed and he signed a search
entry waiver form. With his consent, the officers searched
Ibarra’s hotel room. They discovered illegal controlled substances
in his room.
       Ibarra filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in
the search. He claimed the officers searched the room without
his consent. He claimed the signature on the consent to search
form was not his. The trial court denied the suppression motion
finding the People had met their burden to show a lawful search.
       Ibarra filed a Pitchess motion. The trial court found the
defense had established good cause to review the officers’
personnel records. After conducting an in camera review, the
court released some records for review by the defense.
                            DISCUSSION
                  The Motion to Suppress Evidence
       Ibarra contends the trial court erred by denying his motion
to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) He claims the
evidence shows the police conducted a search without his consent.

                                2
       The trial court is the fact finder on a motion to suppress.
(People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 673.) It decides the
credibility of witnesses; it weighs the evidence and resolves
evidentiary conflicts. (Ibid.) We do not decide the credibility of
witness testimony or reweigh the evidence.
       Searches conducted without a warrant are “unreasonable
per se under the Fourth Amendment unless it falls within one of
the ‘specifically established’ ” exceptions to that requirement.
(People v. Woods, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 674.) “It is ‘well settled
that one of the specifically established exceptions to the
requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search
that is conducted pursuant to consent.’ ” (Ibid.)
       Sheriff Deputy Hernandez testified Ibarra immediately
began to walk away from a hotel room when he saw the officers.
Ibarra appeared to be throwing trash away. The officers detained
him for a “littering investigation.” Ibarra told the officers that he
tossed away “a loaded syringe” containing drugs. He agreed that
the officers could search him “for any additional contraband.”
When Hernandez searched the area where Ibarra tossed the
item, he found a “bindle” containing a white substance
“resembling methamphetamine.” Ibarra said it was his.
       The officers asked Ibarra if they could search his hotel
room. Ibarra agreed and he signed a “search entry waiver form.”
In a search the officers found illegal drugs.
       Ibarra testified the officers handcuffed him and put him in
a patrol car. When they asked his permission to search the hotel
room, he said “no.” He said the signature on the search consent
form was not his. Ibarra admitted that he signed a citation at
the police station.

                                 3
       Ibarra notes the trial court said, “Deputy Hernandez
testified credibly; Mr. Ibarra testified credibly.” He claims this
undermines the court’s ruling on the motion. But the court made
these comments before it ruled on the motion. A “court’s
comments” may “never be used to impeach the order or
judgment.” (Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v.
Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 591.) Such “comments in oral
argument may never be used to impeach the final order.”
(Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 624,
633.) The reason for this is that the court “retains inherent
authority to change its . . . findings of fact . . . at any time before
entry of judgment . . . .” (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008)
170 Cal.App.4th 229, 268.)
       The trial court found the signature on the citation, that
Ibarra admitted he signed, was “similar” to the signature on the
search waiver form. Both begin with what appears to be a large
crude-shaped letter “A” slanting to the left. It found the evidence
“boils down” to a “credibility call[].” The court said the “search
waiver was completed before the search.” The People note the
court rejected the defense claim that the officers had fabricated
the signature. The court found the People met their burden to
prove “the search was lawful.” Consequently, it ultimately
resolved the conflict in the evidence against Ibarra. Ibarra has
not shown the court erred by denying the motion. (People v.
Woods, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 673.)
                         The Pitchess Motion
       Ibarra filed a Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court,
supra, 11 Cal.3d 531; Pen. Code, § 832.7; Evid Code, § 1043 et
seq.) to discover relevant information from the police officers’
personnel records.

                                  4
       “A criminal defendant, on a showing of good cause, is
entitled to discovery of information in the confidential personnel
records of a peace officer when that information is relevant to
defend against a criminal charge.” (People v. Gaines (2009) 46
Cal.4th 172, 176.)
       In the declaration in support of the motion, defense counsel
declared that officers Hernandez and Balarosan had a “custom of
engaging in misconduct” that included fabricating evidence and
conducting searches without a defendant’s consent. The trial
court granted the motion and held an in camera review of the
officers’ personnel records. The court ordered certain information
from these records to be disclosed to the defense, including a
complaint by a woman who said the officers “illegally searched
her residence after she was arrested.”
       But there was another complaint that was not disclosed to
the defense. In complaint No. 254917, filed on October 23, 2020,
a man claimed one of the officers “entered his home, without any
legal justification, while he was away.” This complaint was
relevant to the defense claim that the officers had a pattern of
searching homes without consent from defendants. It should
have been disclosed to the defendant. Consequently, the
judgment must be conditionally reversed. (People v. Gaines,
supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 180-182.)
                            DISPOSTION
       The judgment is conditionally reversed. The trial court on
remand shall disclose complaint No. 254917 to the defense and
hold a hearing where the defendant shall have the burden to
show “a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the
evidence been disclosed.” (People v. Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at
p. 182; People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232.) If the

                                 5
defendant meets that burden, the judgment shall be vacated; if
not, the court must reinstate the judgment. (Id. at p. 176.)
Depending upon what the court determines after its review on
remand, it may wish to reconsider its ruling on the Penal Code
section 1538.5 motion. We leave this decision to the trial court’s
discretion.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                                 6
                      Lee W. Tsao, Judge

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

                ______________________________

      Brad J. Poore, 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, Michael C. Keller and John Yang, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               7