People v. Casillas CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS252686
- Trial judges
- Edward P. Allard III; Ana L. Espana
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Judith L. Haller, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to two years and four months in prison, imposed a criminal justice administration fee, and denied discovery of deputies' personnel records after an in camera review. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the fee imposition or the Pitchess ruling.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of criminal justice administration fee“we may reasonably infer the county incurred arrest-related costs to search, fingerprint, photograph, medically screen, and classify him.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the burden of proof required for unpreserved claims, noting that the appellant failed to demonstrate the absence of qualifying administrative costs despite being previously in custody. The inference that booking-related costs (searching, fingerprinting, etc.) were incurred upon the new arrest is supported by the statutory definition of 'actual administrative costs' in Government Code section 29550, subdivision (e). |
Denial of Pitchess motion for discovery of personnel records“We conclude the court did not err in finding there was no discoverable information in the deputies' personnel records.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the in camera record as requested by the defendant and found no discoverable information regarding acts of excessive force. This aligns with the standard of review for Pitchess motions, where the trial court's determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the appellate court can independently examine the sealed records to ensure the trial court's decision was not arbitrary. |
Authorities
- relied: Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 — Establishes the procedure for in camera review of law enforcement personnel records to determine discoverability of information relevant to excessive force claims.
- relied: People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347 — Appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal when the issue was not raised in the trial court.
- relied: People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287 — Supports the appellate court's authority to independently review the record of an in camera Pitchess proceeding.
- relied: People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 — Notes the legislative codification of Pitchess procedures in Penal Code sections 832.5-832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043-1047.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the burden of proof for unpreserved fee challenges and properly conducts an independent review of the Pitchess record as requested. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the specific arguments raised by the appellant with appropriate statutory and case law citations.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after a jury convicted Casillas of assault on a custodial officer and resisting an executive officer, imposed a $154 criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550 and, following an in camera Pitchess review, found no discoverable information in two deputies' personnel records. The Court of Appeal held Casillas failed to demonstrate error in the fee because the record did not show the county incurred no qualifying arrest-related costs, independently reviewed the sealed Pitchess record and found no error, and affirmed the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a $154 criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550, subdivision (c), on a defendant who was already in county jail custody when he committed the offenses“Casillas has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal and he has not identified any evidence in the record from which we may reasonably infer the county did not incur any qualifying arrest-related costs.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not name a standard; it resolved the claim on the appellant's burden to show error (Gamache) and on inferences that the county incurred qualifying costs. The result is defensible: Casillas did not object below, pointed to nothing in the record showing the absence of booking-type costs, and the statute expressly allows recovery for offenses other than the one for which the person was originally booked. The weak point is that section 29550(e) limits actual administrative costs to functions performed to receive an arrestee into the facility, and the court's inference that an already-housed inmate was searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and classified anew is speculative. The court also noted the lack of objection but did not invoke People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, which holds that failing to object to a booking fee at sentencing forfeits a sufficiency challenge and would have independently disposed of the claim. |
Finding, after in camera Pitchess review, that the two deputy victims' personnel records contained no discoverable information regarding excessive force“After conducting an in camera review, the court determined there was no discoverable information.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state the standard expressly, but it cites Mooc and Hughes and conducts the independent review of the sealed record that those cases prescribe for reviewing a trial court's Pitchess determination for abuse of discretion. The appellate court reviewed the sealed transcript and found no discoverable material. Nothing in the opinion permits an outside reader to second-guess that finding, and the procedure followed is the accepted one. |
Authorities
- relied: Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 — A criminal defendant may obtain discovery of relevant information in peace officer personnel records upon a showing of good cause.
- relied: People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 — Pitchess is codified in Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7, 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043-1047; the trial court reviews records in camera and the appellate court reviews the sealed record for abuse of discretion.
- relied: People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347 — The appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal; absent a record showing error, the judgment is presumed correct.
- relied: People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287 — An appellate court may independently review the sealed record of an in camera Pitchess hearing to determine whether the trial court erred in finding no discoverable information.
- missed: People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 — A defendant who fails to object at sentencing to the imposition of a booking fee forfeits a challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the fee.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result on both issues, correctly placing the burden on the appellant to show error and properly conducting independent review of the sealed Pitchess record. It skipped the controlling forfeiture rule of People v. McCullough despite noting the absence of an objection, and its inference that an inmate already housed in the jail incurred intake-type booking costs is thin given section 29550(e)'s limitation to costs of receiving an arrestee into the facility.
Opinion
Filed 4/24/14 P. v. Casillas CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063400
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS252686)
MANUEL ANGEL CASILLAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Edward P.
Allard III and Ana L. Espana, Judges. Affirmed.
Buckley & Buckley and Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Natasha Cortina and Barry Carlton Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION A jury found Manuel Angel Casillas guilty of assault on a custodial officer (Pen.
Code, § 241.1)1 and resisting an executive officer (§ 69). He admitted having two prior prison commitment convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of two years and four months in prison, to be served consecutive to his sentence in another case.
(See People v. Casillas (Oct. 21, 2013, D062069) [nonpub. opn.].) The court also imposed various fines and fees, including a criminal justice administration fee.
Casillas appeals, contending we must reverse the criminal justice administration fee because he was already in custody at the time he committed his crimes. He also requests we independently review the record of an in camera proceeding conducted under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)2 to determine whether the court erred in finding two sheriff's deputies' personnel records contained no discoverable information.
We conclude Casillas has not established the court erred in imposing the criminal justice administration fee. In addition, we have reviewed the record of the in camera Pitchess proceeding and conclude the court did not err in finding the deputies' personnel records contained no discoverable information. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
1 Further statutory references are also to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2 The Legislature essentially codified Pitchess in sections 832.5, 832.7, 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1047. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1225, fn. 3 & 1226.) 2 BACKGROUND Two sheriff's deputies went to Casillas's jail cell to transport him to court.
Although Casillas had at least 30 minutes notice the deputies were coming for him, they found him on his bunk in his underwear. One of the deputies told Casillas to get dressed for court. Casillas declined, stating he needed to take "a bird bath" in his cell sink. The deputies repeatedly instructed him to hurry up and get ready to leave. He repeatedly told them he was going to take his time and take a bird bath. Eventually, he went over to the sink and started brushing his teeth, but he continued to decline to get dressed for court, stating he needed to take a bird bath.
When he finished brushing his teeth, he turned toward, spat at, and punched one of the deputies in the mouth. The deputy attempted to push Casillas to the back of the cell and gain control of him with control holds and punches. The second deputy likewise attempted to gain control of Casillas with control holds and punches. Both deputies repeatedly commanded Casillas to stop resisting and lie on the ground, but Casillas did not comply. Instead, he swung his fists wildly and struck the second deputy's midsection.
Other deputies subsequently arrived to assist and collectively the deputies were able to restrain Casillas.
As a result of the incident, the first deputy sustained a cut lip and a broken hand.
The second deputy sustained a sprained wrist. Casillas sustained no significant injuries.
3 DISCUSSION
I
Criminal Justice Administration Fee Government Code section 29550, subdivision (c), provides: "Any county whose officer or agent arrests a person is entitled to recover from the arrested person a criminal justice administration fee for administrative costs it incurs in conjunction with the arrest if the person is convicted of any criminal offense related to the arrest, whether or not it is the offense for which the person was originally booked. The fee which the county is entitled to recover pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons."
" '[A]ctual administrative costs' include only those costs for functions that are performed in order to receive an arrestee into a county detention facility. Operating expenses of the county jail facility including capital costs and those costs involved in the housing, feeding, and care of inmates shall not be included in calculating 'actual administrative costs.' . . . 'Actual administrative costs' may include any one or more of the following as related to receiving an arrestee into the county detention facility: [¶] (1)
The searching, wristbanding, bathing, clothing, fingerprinting, photographing, and medical and mental screening of an arrestee. [¶] (2) Document preparation, retrieval, updating, filing, and court scheduling related to receiving an arrestee into the detention facility. [¶] (3) Warrant service, processing, and detainer. [¶] (4) Inventory of an arrestee's money and creation of cash accounts. [¶] (5) Inventory and storage of an 4 arrestee's property. [¶] (6) Inventory, laundry, and storage of an arrestee's clothing. [¶]
(7) The classification of an arrestee. [¶] (8) The direct costs of automated services utilized in paragraphs (1) to (7), inclusive. [¶] (9) Unit management and supervision of the detention function as related to paragraphs (1) to (8), inclusive." (Gov. Code, § 29550, subd. (e).)
At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a $154 fee under this section.
Although Casillas did not object to the fee below, he contends on appeal the court erred in imposing the fee because he was already in custody at the county jail when he was arrested and, consequently, the county could not have incurred any actual administrative costs in receiving him into the jail after his arrest.
However, as the People correctly point out, Casillas has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error on appeal and he has not identified any evidence in the record from which we may reasonably infer the county did not incur any qualifying arrest-related costs. (People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 378.) To the contrary, given the circumstances of Casillas's crimes, we may reasonably infer the county incurred arrest-related costs to search, fingerprint, photograph, medically screen, and classify him.
(Gov. Code, § 29550, subd. (e)(1) & (7).) We may also reasonably infer the county incurred arrest-related costs for "[d]ocument preparation, retrieval, updating, filing, and court scheduling" as well as for automation and supervision. (Gov. Code, § 29550, subd.
(e)(2), (8) & (9).) Accordingly, we conclude Casillas has not established the trial court erred in imposing the criminal justice administration fee.
5 II Pitchess Motion Before trial, Casillas moved under Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531 for discovery of information in the personnel records of the two deputy victims. The court granted the motion, agreeing to review the deputies' personnel records to determine whether they contained discoverable information related to acts of excessive force. After conducting an in camera review, the court determined there was no discoverable information.
At Casillas's request, and with no objection by the People, we have independently reviewed the record of the in camera Pitchess proceeding. (See, e.g., People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330.) We conclude the court did not err in finding there was no discoverable information in the deputies' personnel records.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Gamache S052808 · 2010-03-18
- People v. Hughes S017869 · 2002-04-10
- People v. Mooc S090666 · 2002-01-29
- Pitchess v. Superior Court L.A. 30224 · 1974-05-23