Pitchess motion analysis in California

2025In In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 730 , the defendant claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to make a Pitchess motion to challenge the officer who the defendant alleged beat him during an interrogation.

2014We agree. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). 2 “Issues concerning the defendant’s guilt or innocence are not cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea. [Citations.]” (People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364 .) “The same restrictions on appellate issues apply after a no contest plea [citations] ….” (Ibid.) “A voluntary plea of guilty [or no contest] is the equivalent of a conviction of the crime and includes an admission of every element of the crime.” (People v. Enos (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d

2014(People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42 ; People v. Collins (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 137, 151 .) Here, defendant’s no contest plea admitted every element of the crime and waived any discovery issues, including denial of his Pitchess motion.

2014(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 .) 2 FACTS Logan Vescio was involved in a midnight accident on the 57 freeway that left his car badly damaged, but him unhurt.

2014We agree. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). 2 “Issues concerning the defendant’s guilt or innocence are not cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea. [Citations.]” (People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364 .) “The same restrictions on appellate issues apply after a no contest plea [citations] ….” (Ibid.) “A voluntary plea of guilty [or no contest] is the equivalent of a conviction of the crime and includes an admission of every element of the crime.” (People v. Enos (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d

2014(People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42 ; People v. Collins (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 137, 151 .) Here, defendant’s no contest plea admitted every element of the crime and waived any discovery issues, including denial of his Pitchess motion.

2014We agree. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). 2 “Issues concerning the defendant’s guilt or innocence are not cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea. [Citations.]” (People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364 .) “The same restrictions on appellate issues apply after a no contest plea [citations] ….” (Ibid.) “A voluntary plea of guilty [or no contest] is the equivalent of a conviction of the crime and includes an admission of every element of the crime.” (People v. Enos (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d

2013(People v. Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321 .) 51 N. PITCHESS MOTION In defendant’s opening brief, he requests this court review the reporter’s and clerk’s transcripts of the in-camera Pitchess hearing, and then reverse his convictions if we find “undisclosed discoverable information which would have had a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the trial.” The People do not object to this court reviewing the transcripts of the Pitchess hearing.

2013A court reporter should be present to document the custodian‟s statements, as well as any questions the trial court may wish to ask the custodian regarding the completeness of the record. [Citation.]” ( Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1228-1229.) The Mooc court further stated that during the Pitchess motion hearing, “The trial court should then make a record of what documents it examined before ruling on the Pitchess motion.

2001DISCUSSION Before turning to the statutory background for a Pitchess motion and our analysis of the contentions in light of such law, we note that writ review is appropriate because Alford and Love have sought relief from a discovery order which could undermine their right to present a defense because appellate remedies are not adequate to cure the erroneous denial of disclosure of information, and general guidelines appear to be necessary for the lower courts. ( People v. Superior Court ( Mouchaourab ) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 .) In reviewing the discovery order, we

2001In adopting such statutory scheme, the Legislature "`not only reaffirmed but expanded' the principles of criminal discovery articulated" in Pitchess. ( City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 84 , 260 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 776 P.2d 222 .) As the court in CHP, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 1010 , 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 379 recently noted, Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 "establish a two-step procedure for discovery of peace officer personnel records by a criminal defendant.

2001DISCUSSION Before turning to the statutory background for a Pitchess motion and our analysis of the contentions in light of such law, we note that writ review is appropriate because Alford and Love have sought relief from a discovery order which could undermine their right to present a defense because appellate remedies are not adequate to cure the erroneous denial of disclosure of information, and general guidelines appear to be necessary for the lower courts. ( People v. Superior Court ( Mouchaourab ) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 .) In reviewing the discovery order, we

2001DISCUSSION Before turning to the statutory background for a Pitchess motion and our analysis of the contentions in light of such law, we note that writ review is appropriate because Alford and Love have sought relief from a discovery order which could undermine their right to present a defense because appellate remedies are not adequate to cure the erroneous denial of disclosure of information, and general guidelines appear to be necessary for the lower courts. ( People v. Superior Court ( Mouchaourab ) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 .) In reviewing the discovery order, we

2001DISCUSSION Before turning to the statutory background for a Pitchess motion and our analysis of the contentions in light of such law, we note that writ review is appropriate because Alford and Love have sought relief from a discovery order which could undermine their right to present a defense because appellate remedies are not adequate to cure the erroneous denial of disclosure of information, and general guidelines appear to be necessary for the lower courts. ( People v. Superior Court ( Mouchaourab ) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 .) In reviewing the discovery order, we

2001DISCUSSION Before turning to the statutory background for a Pitchess motion and our analysis of the contentions in light of such law, we note that writ review is appropriate because Alford and Love have sought relief from a discovery order which could undermine their right to present a defense because appellate remedies are not adequate to cure the erroneous denial of disclosure of information, and general guidelines appear to be necessary for the lower courts. ( People v. Superior Court ( Mouchaourab ) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 .) In reviewing the discovery order, we