People v. Haywood CA5

DISCUSSION

I. Abstract of Judgment

Defendant contends, and the People agree, that the trial court sentenced defendant to three years eight months, to be served concurrently with his term in case number SF16481A, but the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects that the sentences are to be served consecutively. We agree that the original abstract was incorrect. On February 4, 2014, however, this court received an amended abstract of judgment, filed on January 14, 2014, which correctly reflects that the sentences are to be served concurrently. Accordingly, no further action is required.

II. Pitchess Review

Defendant asks that we review the material examined in camera by the trial court pursuant to defendant’s Pitchess motion for discovery of complaints of dishonesty, false statements, or fabrication of charges by officers. The trial court found no discoverable material in the officers’ personnel files. Defendant requests that we review that ruling. The People counter that defendant has waived this challenge by pleading no contest. In his reply brief, defendant concedes the issue in light of the People’s points. We agree.

All statutory references are to the Penal…