What is the effect of the Court of Appeal's decision on a motion to overturn a sentence for shooting at an occupied vehicle?

In the previous appeal, we agreed with appellants that their sentences for shooting at an occupied vehicle (count 9) should have been stayed under section 654, and we modified the judgments accordingly. We also remanded the case for a new in camera hearing on appellants' Pitchess motions relating to Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Deputy Corina, who was involved in the investigation of the case. We found that at the previous Pitchess hearing, "[t]he court limited the review to records relevant to fabrication. Our review of the sealed portion of the record indicates that, in camera, the court asked the custodian of records whether there were discoverable files as to fabrication, and the custodian responded under oath that the officer had 'no complaints in the last five years.' The court did not review any records or ask any other questions. This

Page 4

procedure was inadequate." (People v. Jackson (May 26, 2016, No. B256011 [nonpub. opn.]).)

We remanded, stating, "[T]he matter is remanded to the trial court for a new in camera hearing on appellants' Pitchess motions. If the trial court finds there are discoverable records, they shall be produced and the court shall conduct further proceedings as necessary. If the court again finds there are no discoverable records, or finds that appellants cannot establish they were prejudiced by the denial of discovery, the judgments shall be reinstated as of that date." (People v. Jackson (May 26, 2016, No. B256011 [nonpub. opn.]).)