People v. Rollings CA1/1

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: A169344
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 3/25/25 P. v. Rollings CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A169344 v. (Sonoma County JEFFREY TODD WAYNE Super. Ct. No. SCR-759646-1) ROLLINGS, Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Jeffrey Todd Wayne Rollings was sentenced to two years in county jail after a jury found him guilty of one felony count of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code,2 § 69, subd. (a)) and four misdemeanor charges: battery upon a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (b)), obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), battery (§ 242), and vandalism over $400 (§ 594, subd. (a)). In this appeal, Rollings asks us to review the in camera proceedings on the

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California

Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1. We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. motion his trial counsel filed under Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045, which codified Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Finding no abuse of discretion in those proceedings, we affirm the conviction. In the Pitchess motion, defense counsel sought the production of police files and records concerning the three Santa Rosa police officers who were involved in the physical altercation with Rollings that underlay the charges. The trial court conducted in camera Pitchess hearings on four separate dates and sealed the transcripts for those proceedings. At the conclusion of those proceedings, the court informed the parties that there would be no disclosure of any police files or records. Rollings asks us to conduct an independent review of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion and the People make no objection. We routinely grant such requests “ ‘to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a defendant’s motion for disclosure of police personnel records.’ ” (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1209.) Here, “[w]e have reviewed the record under seal and independently conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling upon the Pitchess motion.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1286.) DISPOSITION We affirm.

SMILEY, J.

WE CONCUR:

BANKE, ACTING P. J. LANGHORNE WILSON, J.

A169344 People v. Rollings