People v. Kuahuia CA2/8

DISCUSSION

During our independent review of the record, we discovered an irregularity in the trial court’s abstract of judgment. The August 7, 2013 abstract of judgment reflects that defendant’s conviction under Health and Safety Code section 11378 was by plea, instead of by jury. The abstract of judgment should be corrected to properly reflect defendant’s conviction by jury. We have conducted an independent examination of the in camera Pitchess proceedings under Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at page 1226.3 Based upon our review of the

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Defendant has requested that this court augment the appellate record to include copies of the materials reviewed by the trial court during the course of its in camera review. The law does not require this. The trial court can make a record for appellate review by either describing the documents it reviews or ordering them photocopied. (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1229-1230.) The trial court here described the documents it reviewed, and made an adequate record.

3 record, we conclude the trial court’s orders concerning the disclosure of Pitchess materials were correct. In all other respects, we have…