People v. Obrien CA5
F070105
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2016Background
- On March 7, 2014 probation officers searched appellant Colin Neal O'Brien’s residence and found ~29.23 grams methamphetamine, a digital scale, used syringes, and items near his mail; O'Brien was convicted of possession for sale (Health & Saf. Code §11378) and a misdemeanor paraphernalia count.
- Information alleged multiple prior serious/violent felony convictions and multiple prior prison-term enhancements (Pen. Code §§667, 667.5). Guilt phase to jury; priors/penalty phase to judge.
- At the bifurcated prior-prior trial the People relied on a CLETS rap sheet, abstracts of judgment and Penal Code §969b packets for some priors, but did not introduce a 969b packet for the May 9, 2006 conviction; the trial court found certain prior serious-felony allegations true but disallowed the Vehicle Code 10851 prior-prison allegation as unproven.
- The trial court nonetheless found true a one-year prior-prison-term enhancement based on an asserted 1998 prison term and a lack of any five-year “washout” period thereafter; probation’s report later included a one-year enhancement but the bifurcated trial record did not include certain custody/release evidence (e.g., PRCS entry).
- O'Brien appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence supported the one-year prior-prior prison enhancement (washout issue), and (2) the trial court erred in denying disclosure after an in-camera Pitchess review of a probation officer’s personnel file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for one-year prior-prison enhancement under Pen. Code §667.5(b) (washout period) | The People argued records and intake notations support that O'Brien served prison time after 1998/2006 priors and thus no five-year washout occurred; probation report and rap sheet indicate custody. | O'Brien argued the People failed to prove the length of confinement or release dates for the 2006 conviction; rap sheet entries were conflicting/scant and did not establish he was not free for five continuous years before the 2014 offense. | Reversed as to the §667.5 enhancement: insufficient evidence to prove no five-year washout; remanded for further proceedings. |
| Pitchess motion / in-camera review of probation officer personnel file | The People contended the court properly conducted an in-camera review and found no responsive records. | O'Brien requested independent appellate review of the Pitchess proceedings and argued disclosure was required. | Affirmed: trial court complied with Pitchess procedures, created a record, and did not abuse discretion; no records of dishonesty were found. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Delgado, 43 Cal.4th 1059 (burden to prove sentencing enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Fielder, 114 Cal.App.4th 1221 (substantial-evidence standard on enhancement challenges)
- People v. Hutton, 245 Cal.App.4th 703 (elements and washout period under §667.5(b))
- People v. Ramon, 175 Cal.App.4th 843 (speculation is not substantial evidence)
- Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (prior-conviction enhancements and double jeopardy limits)
- People v. Barragan, 32 Cal.4th 236 (retrial of prior allegations after insufficient evidence reversal)
- People v. Marin, 240 Cal.App.4th 1344 (remand for further proceedings on prior-conviction issues)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Pitchess procedures and in-camera review)
- People v. Prince, 40 Cal.4th 1179 (appellate independent review of Pitchess proceedings)