Error and/or relief
At the hearing under section 1172.75, it was error to deny the defendant’s motion for discovery of Brady materials that he sought to prepare his case for the recall hearing.
We remand the case for the trial court to review the sought Brady materials to determine whether anything exists that must be provided to the defendant. If so, then it should conduct a new resentencing hearing. If it determines that there is nothing of Brady material nature to be disclosed, it may deny the request, state its reasons, and reinstate the judgment.
Also, the trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.
First Holding:
In the course of the proceedings, the district attorney’s office notified the defendant’s attorney that it had requested Brady information from the law enforcement agency involved in the original investigation of the crimes leading to the defendant’s conviction. The officer’s personnel file may contain information that is potentially exculpatory or may be used for impeachment. The defendant then filed a Pitchess motion to obtain the Brady material. The trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.
Under Brady and its progeny, the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose to the defense material exculpatory evidence, including potential impeaching evidence. Although Brady is essentially a trial right, courts have acknowledged that the People’s obligations under Brady are ongoing, even postjudgment.
Authority:
Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83
In re Jenkins (2023) 14 Cal.5th 493, 504
People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1058–1059
In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1246 [Even after a conviction, the prosecutor is bound by the ethics of his office to inform the appropriate authority of information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction]
Canion v. Cole (2005) 210 Ariz. 598, 599 [the state has a continuing Brady duty to disclose evidence that comes to its attention after sentencing] cited with approval in Jenkins, at p. 505
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531
Second Holding:
In Pitchess, the California Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant may, in some circumstances, compel the discovery of evidence in the arresting law enforcement officer’s personnel file that is relevant to the defendant’s ability to defend against a criminal charge. In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as ‘Pitchess motions’ through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045.
Authority:
PEN 832.7
PEN 832.8
EVID 1043-1045
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531
People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1052
Third Holding:
A Pitchess motion may be used to obtain Brady material contained in a peace officer’s confidential personnel file.
However, because the Pitchess process operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information, all information that the trial court finds to be exculpatory and material under Brady must be disclosed, notwithstanding the limitations of the Pitchess process.
Authority:
People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1055
People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 720
Fourth Holding:
Although the proceeding below was a resentencing hearing, Brady material may have some relevance. Where, as here, section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors. This entails applying any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75(d)(2)
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3
Fifth Holding:
Under the resentencing procedures set forth in section 1172.1(a)(5), the trial court must consider evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice, which may include evidence that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to the conviction or sentence at issue, and any other evidence that undermines the integrity of the underlying conviction or sentence.
Authority:
PEN 1172.1(a)(5)
Sixth Holding:
Further, at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court may exercise its power under section 1385 and Romero to dismiss a prior strike conviction in furtherance of justice. When exercising this power, the court may consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of a defendant’s conviction.
Authority:
People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361–364
People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 586
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497