People v. Bac Tieng Nguyen

*46 Defendant Bac Tieng Nguyen appeals following his conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c) ) based on a situation in which he wielded a large knife and took a step toward police officers after the officers ordered *284 him to put the knife down. 1 He argues that the "present ability" element of the crime was missing, as a matter of law, given the 10- to 15-foot distance between him and the officers at the time of the incident. He also requests that we independently review the documents reviewed in camera by the trial court in conjunction with a Pitchess 2 motion he filed, which sought to obtain information from confidential police officer personnel records. Our independent review reveals no error, and, thus, we affirm the judgment.

I

FACTS

On January 5, 2014, defendant's father called 9-1-1 to report that there was a man at his house who was making threats while carrying a large knife or samurai sword. Garden Grove Police Officers John Raney and Joshua Olivo responded to the scene, and learned upon their arrival that the sword-wielding man was defendant. Defendant's father, who was standing in the front yard when the officers…

I have signed the majority opinion under the compulsion of People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181 , 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 , 274 P.3d 413 , People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 , 1229, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 , and Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 . As presently expressed, California law seems to provide appellate review not of the merits *50 of an in camera Pitchess hearing ( Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 , 113 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 522 P.2d 305 ), but only of the procedures followed. We have reviewed those procedures in this case and they are unobjectionable, so the majority opinion is correct.

But I don't think it's right. I cannot understand why this one area of criminal law provides for no meaningful review of the trial court's decision on the merits . It is beyond my ken that we provide appellate review of every other trial court decision, but choose not to provide it on this important issue of criminal discovery.

People v. Myles, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1209 , 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 , 274 P.3d 413 , says, "The sealed transcript that is before us, in which the court 'state[d] for the record…