Ochoa

In the underlying action, appellant Jordy Ezequiel Ochoa was charged with possession of a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). 1 Prior to his trial, he sought discovery under Pitchess v. Superior *667 Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 522 P.2d 305 ] {Pitchess). After the jury in appellant’s first trial was unable to reach a verdict on the charge, the trial court declined to revoke appellant’s probation, and appellant was convicted of the charge after a second trial. Appellant contends that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the ruling on his probation barred the second trial; in addition, he requests this court independently review the in camera proceeding conducted pursuant to Pitchess , to determine whether the trial court improperly denied disclosure of discoverable information. We reject the contention regarding the application of collateral estoppel, and following a review of the in camera proceeding, find no error under Pitchess . We therefore affirm.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2007, appellant suffered a felony conviction for resisting an executive officer (§ 69), and was placed on formal…