Filed 5/24/24 P. v. Grimes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098157 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR0000360) v. JOHN WILLIAM GRIMES, Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant John William Grimes guilty of inflicting corporal injury and the trial court sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. Prior to trial, Grimes filed a Pitchess1 motion seeking discovery of law enforcement personnel records, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Grimes requests this court review the sealed transcript

1 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

to determine if the trial court properly denied the Pitchess motion. Having done so, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND As relevant here, two officers responded to a domestic disturbance in July 2022.

The victim, who had a large lump on her forehead, was distraught and explained to the responding officers that Grimes had caused the injury. The People charged Grimes with inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and assault on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)). Grimes moved for discovery of any materials, including personnel files, showing that the responding officers had “engaged in acts of misconduct and/or dishonesty.” After conducting an in camera examination of the Pitchess materials, the trial court denied the motion. A jury ultimately found Grimes guilty of inflicting corporal injury and not guilty of assault on a peace officer. The court sentenced Grimes to the middle term of three years. Grimes filed a notice of appeal with this court in March 2023. His opening brief was filed in December 2023, and this case was fully briefed on April 22, 2024.

DISCUSSION Grimes asks this court to conduct an independent review of the sealed records of the trial court’s hearing on his Pitchess motion. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229; People v. Rodriguez (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 360, 366.) The People do not oppose the request.

We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a Pitchess motion absent an abuse of discretion. (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1039.) Having reviewed the Pitchess record, we find no procedural or substantive error in the trial court’s handling of the motion or in its ruling. (See People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1208-1209.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

/s/ RENNER, Acting P. J.

/s/ MESIWALA, J.