People v. Negrete CA4/2

Filed 11/5/26 P. v. Negrete CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ord ered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E085889 v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB24002920) MATTHEW NEGRETE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 1  Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Caelle Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant Matthew Negrete was convicted of two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts against his daughter and her friend. Defendant claims on appeal that the trial court violated his due process rights and committed reversible error when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 207 with a time frame of the commission of the offenses, which did not match the time frame of the victim’s trial testimony. In addition, he asks this court to review school records that were part of an in camera review by the trial court to determine if relevant information should have been disclosed to the defense. We affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant was charged in an amended information in count 1 with committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, O.Doe, between July 1, 2021, and July 31, 2021. (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a); count 1.) In counts 2, 3, and 4, he was charged with committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, E.Doe, on or about January 1, 2024, through July 28, 2024. (§ 288, subd. (a).) It was also alleged that he committed counts 1 through 4 against multiple victims under the age of 14 within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (b), (e), and (j)(2). 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2  The jury found defendant guilty of counts 1 and 2. It also found true the allegations that he committed the offense against multiple victims (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)(4)) and that they were both under the age of 14 (§ 667.61, subd. (j)(2). They were unable to reach a verdict on counts 3 and 4. The trial court declared a mistrial on those counts and they were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life. FACTUAL HISTORY A. PEOPLE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF 1. COUNTS 1: O.DOE O.Doe was 12 years old at the time of trial. She was born in July 2012. In 2020, O.Doe’s family lived in a duplex located in Yucaipa. O.Doe and her family, which included her mother (K.S.), her stepdad, and her three brothers, lived in the back unit of the duplex. Another family lived in the front unit, and they had a daughter, E.Doe. O.Doe met E.Doe when she was seven years old and they became friends when O.Doe was eight years old. E.Doe lived with her mother (B.N.), defendant, and her little brother, C.N. E.Doe, B.N., and C.N. moved out of the front unit of the duplex when O.Doe was 10 or 11 years old; defendant stayed in the duplex.2 O.Doe would sleep over at E.Doe’s house on Saturday nights. O.Doe believed that they had about 12 sleepovers at E.Doe’s house. Once B.N., E.Doe, and C.N. moved out of the Yucaipa house, E.Doe, and C.N. would visit defendant and have O.Doe over 2 In 2020, B.N. and defendant separated and B.N. moved out of the duplex. Defendant remained in the duplex; E.Doe and C.N. would visit him there. 3 for sleepovers. E.Doe, and O.Doe began sleeping on the floor at the end of defendant’s bed once B.N. moved out, instead of sleeping in the living room on the couch. O.Doe’s ninth birthday was in July 2021. She spent the night at E.Doe’s house that night and the prior night. On the night before her birthday, O.Doe and E.Doe slept on the floor in defendant’s bedroom. O.Doe fell asleep but woke up to find defendant lying next to her with his hands on her stomach, moving his hands around. He was touching her under her pajamas. She removed his hand from her stomach and went back to sleep. She did not say anything to defendant. On her birthday, she again stayed the night at E.Doe’s house. She and E.Doe once again slept at the end of defendant’s bed on the floor. O.Doe fell asleep and woke up with defendant’s hand on her stomach. He moved his hand under her pajama top and moved his hand up to her “chest a little bit,” but he did not touch her breasts. He then moved his hand underneath her pajama bottoms. Defendant put his hand under her underwear and touched her “butt.” He moved his hand in a circular motion on her butt cheeks. He moved his hand around to her front and tried to touch her “private area in the front,” which she said was her vagina, but she was able to move his hand away. O.Doe did not say anything to defendant. The contact was skin-to-skin. Defendant tried to put his hands back on her, but she got up and sat on the bed. She was upset, uncomfortable and crying. O.Doe woke up E.Doe and told her that she wanted to go home. O.Doe did not tell E.Doe why she wanted to go home. O.Doe did not tell anyone what happened that night. 4  Several days prior to her birthday, O.Doe and E.Doe asked defendant if he would buy them some accessories for O.Doe’s dolls. Defendant said he would buy them if O.Doe kissed him on the cheek. O.Doe did not want to, but E.Doe told her to do it. O.Doe kissed him on the cheek. Defendant gave her the accessories several days after her birthday. Defendant moved out of the front duplex not too long after this happened. Once defendant moved out of the front duplex, O.Doe only saw E.Doe two or three additional times. O.Doe and E.Doe kept in touch by texting each other. Around O.Doe’s 12th birthday, she and E.Doe got together at O.Doe’s house. After that day, O.Doe started to change and had an “attitude” with her mother, K.S. She took some things from her aunt’s house that did not belong to her and she got in trouble with K.S. She was acting out because she was thinking about what defendant did to her. K.S. asked her what was wrong, and O.Doe started crying. K.S. asked her if something had happened to her. It was at that point that O.Doe disclosed to K.S. that defendant had touched her at E.Doe’s house. K.S. talked to E.Doe’s mother, B.N., several weeks after O.Doe first told K.S. and eventually contacted law enforcement. O.Doe never talked to E.Doe about what defendant did to her. K.S. recalled that O.Doe stayed at E.Doe’s house for sleepovers. She specifically recalled that O.Doe stayed at E.Doe’s house on her birthday. O.Doe came home in the middle of the night and told K.S. she came home because she was scared. This was the first time that she had returned early from a sleepover. 5  K.S. recalled that in June 2024, O.Doe and E.Doe got together at K.S.’s house. O.Doe’s attitude after this playdate changed. K.S. sensed that something had happened to O.Doe. O.Doe then took some items from her aunt’s house that did not belong to her. K.S. asked O.Doe about taking things from her aunt. O.Doe started crying and told K.S. that defendant had put his hand down her pants. O.Doe stated it occurred around her ninth birthday. When they arrived home from the aunt’s house, K.S. called B.N. She told B.N. what O.Doe had told her about defendant. She asked B.N. if she could ask E.Doe about that night’s sleeping arrangements, but not disclose the touching. After this, K.S. contacted the police. San Bernardino Sheriff’s Detective Rene Olivares interviewed O.Doe prior to trial. She confirmed she was born in January 2012, and had just turned 12 years old at the time of the interview. She told Detective Olivares that she had slept over at E.Doe’s house. She woke up to defendant wrapping his hands around her and trying to touch her private area. He put his hands underneath her underwear in her private area. He also touched her buttocks. She believed it occurred on July 20, 2021. She indicated E.Doe wanted to sleep in defendant’s room because the couch was too small for them. She got up after defendant touched her, woke E.Doe, and E.Doe walked her home. 2. COUNT 2: E.DOE E.Doe was 12 years old at trial. She was born in February 2012. She recalled living in the Yucaipa house. She did not recall when she, B.N. and C.N. moved out. She and C.N. visited defendant at the Yucaipa house after they moved out. Defendant 6 eventually moved out and she did not see him for over one year. She believed he then moved back to San Bernardino to live with his grandmother G.N. (Grandmother), when E.Doe was 11 years old. She and C.N. went to have visits with defendant usually on Saturdays and they would stay overnight. Sometime in 2024 she stopped staying overnight and only had daytime visits with defendant. E.Doe recalled that when O.Doe would sleep over while her, C.N. and B.N. were still living with defendant, she would sleep in the same bed as O.Doe in a room separate from defendant. She did not recall that they ever slept on the couch. One time, after B.N. moved out, they slept on the floor in defendant’s bedroom. She did not recall why they decided to sleep in his room. C.N. slept in the bed with defendant. In the middle of the night, O.Doe woke up E.Doe and told her she wanted to go home because she missed her mother. E.Doe tried to wake up defendant to tell him that O.Doe wanted to go home, but he would not wake up. E.Doe walked O.Doe back to her house. O.Doe never stayed the night at her house after that night. On June 28, 2024, she and O.Doe had a get together. After the get together, B.N. questioned E.Doe about the sleepovers that she and O.Doe used to have. E.Doe believed it was around July 14, 2024, that B.N. first talked to her about what happened between O.Doe and defendant. B.N. told E.Doe why O.Doe had gone home that night and the details of what O.Doe said had happened. E.Doe was surprised about O.Doe, but eventually told B.N. that something had also happened to her. E.Doe stated that she had been touched inappropriately on her vagina and buttocks by defendant while they were at Grandmother’s house. He touched her on her private 7 parts on four different days. Defendant moved in with Grandmother when he returned in late 2022. He touched E.Doe when she was 12 years old. She had turned 12 in February 2024. The touching always occurred at Grandmother’s house. It was always at nighttime during their visits. When they would visit defendant at Grandmother’s house, she and C.N. would sleep in defendant’s bedroom. Defendant rubbed her breast skin-to-skin and then she was able to push him away. He rubbed her buttocks outside her underwear, but under her pants. He touched her vagina over her underwear, but under her pants. He tried to put his hand inside of her underwear, but she was able to stop him. Defendant would stop if she told him to stop. E.Doe estimated defendant rubbed her breast skin-to-skin two times. He rubbed her buttocks on top of her underwear three times. He touched her vagina “up and down,” which she described as from her belly button down toward her buttocks. The touching occurred on four nights and he would touch different private parts on those nights. He only stopped touching her if she pushed him away. Two times defendant tried to put his hand under her underwear, but she was able to push him away. One time, he was lying on his back and grabbed her waist trying to get her on top of him. He was able to get her on top of him and they were face to face. Her vagina was on top of his pants and he moved her to try to get her to rub her vagina against him. He moved her back and forth 8 over his private area. This went on for less than minute before she was able to pull away.3 C.N. was always asleep during these incidents. She did not talk to defendant about what had happened because she was scared. After these incidents, she became moodier and did not want people to touch her. E.Doe only told B.N. because of what had happened with O.Doe. E.Doe again testified that she was 12 years old when defendant first touched her. She could not recall the exact date that defendant first touched her, but she had turned 12 years old at the beginning of February 2024. The touching stopped when defendant got a girlfriend. She believed that defendant got a girlfriend in March 2024. As such, the touching would have occurred after February 3, 2024, until March 2024. She estimated this occurred every weekend in February 2024. She disclosed the abuse to B.N. on July 28, 2024. She admitted that she had never before disclosed to B.N. or law enforcement officers that all of the abuse occurred in February 2024. She did not recall previously stating that the abuse started in January 2024. She did not believe there was any further abuse after February 2024. B.N. testified that she had known defendant for 14 years and they were divorced in 2020. After B.N. and the two children moved out of the duplex in September 2020, E.Doe and C.N. would visit defendant. Sometime after B.N. moved out of the duplex, defendant also moved out. He moved to Monterrey. E.Doe and C.N. did not visit with defendant while he was in Monterrey. Defendant moved in with Grandmother in San 3 E.Doe had not told the police prior to her testimony about this incident. She had just recalled that it had happened. 9 Bernardino in 2022. E.Doe and C.N. resumed overnight visits with defendant one night each week. Starting in May 2024, E.Doe and C.N. only had day visits with defendant. B.N. believed that defendant moved in with his girlfriend in May 2024, and B.N. did not want E.Doe and C.N. staying the night since she did not know defendant’s girlfriend. E.Doe and O.Doe did not see each other much after they moved out of the duplex. They had one final playdate in June or July 2024. K.S. contacted B.N. on July 14, 2024, and asked if she could speak with E.Doe and C.N. about the sleepovers with O.Doe and if they remembered anything about them. B.N. spoke with E.Doe that night. B.N. did not tell her what K.S. had told her about what happened to O.Doe. On July 28, 2024, B.N. had another conversation with E.Doe and C.N. together. She had discontinued visits for them with defendant after her July 14 conversation with K.S. At some point during the conversation, she asked C.N. to leave the room. E.Doe spoke with B.N., and as a result of the conversation, B.N. had her mother, who was also present, contact law enforcement. The police came to her house that night and spoke with E.Doe and B.N. B.N. never told E.Doe what to say to law enforcement. Since E.Doe had talked to law enforcement, she was very anxious and had panic attacks. C.N. was nine years old. He recalled that when he and E.Doe visited defendant while he lived at Grandmother’s house; they all slept in the same room. He was very unclear on the dates when he stayed the night at defendant’s house. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Detective Rene Olivares interviewed E.Doe prior to trial. E.Doe explained that defendant had touched her private places a “few months 10 ago” at Grandmother’s house. Grandmother lived in San Bernardino and was her great- grandmother. E.Doe and C.N. would visit defendant on Saturdays and sometimes on Sundays. E.Doe believed that the first incident of sexual abuse occurred in January 2024, but could not recall if it was prior to or after her birthday. Defendant would not say anything when E.Doe told him to stop. E.Doe recalled that the sexual abuse had happened a couple of times. She could not remember when it first happened. Deputy Olivares recalled that when he interviewed B.N., she stated that around January or February 2024, defendant stopped having E.Doe and C.N. stay the night. They did stay the night with defendant starting in May 2024. E.Doe believed that she and C.N. did not stay the night at defendant’s house from either January or February 2024 until May 2024. B. DEFENSE Defendant recalled B.N. When defendant returned from Monterrey, he mostly had visits on Saturdays. B.N. stated that it was not true that E.Doe had no visits with defendant between January and May 2024. The visits were inconsistent during this time, but did not completely stop in May 2024. Defendant also presented evidence that E.Doe did not stay the night at defendant’s house on the first three Saturdays in February. She also did not stay with defendant for several weekends in March 2024. B.N. clarified that visits became less frequent in February and March 2024, but they also would sometimes have visits on Sunday rather than Saturday. There were Saturday visits in January 2024. 11  DISCUSSION A. MODIFICATION OF CALCRIM NO. 207 Defendant contends the trial court should have granted defense counsel’s request to modify CALCRIM No. 207 to conform to the dates that E.Doe testified to at trial, which was February 2024, and not the time frame from January 1, 2024, until July 2024. Such failure to modify the instruction violated his right to due process and is reversible error. 1. ADDITIONAL FACTUAL HISTORY The People proposed that the jury be instructed with CALCRIM No. 207 as follows: “It is alleged as to Count 1 that the crime occurred on or about July 1, 2021 through July 31, 2021. [¶] It is alleged as to Counts 2, 3 and 4 that the crimes occurred on or about January 1, 2024 through July 28, 2024. [¶] The People are not required to prove that the crimes took place exactly on those days but only that they happened reasonably close to those days.” During discussion of the instructions, defendant’s counsel asked that the trial court modify the instruction as to the timeframe for E.Doe that was stated as January 1, 2024, to July 28, 2024. The instruction should be modified to conform to the testimony, as E.Doe testified at trial that the four instances of sexual abuse exclusively occurred in February 2024. The People requested, based on the entirety of the testimony, that the timeframe remain January 1, 2024, to July 28, 2024. The trial court noted that during E.Doe’s testimony, she did not volunteer that all of the sexual abuse occurred in the month of February. She only responded yes to the question on cross-examination. 12 Further, throughout the trial, different dates were brought up through direct and cross- examination, and the interviews that were played for the jury. “And so it is really not entirely clear what the exact time frame was. And the jury is instructed that it occurred on or about within a time frame. [¶] Certainly, the defense can argue inconsistencies regarding credibility.” The trial court ruled the timeframe would remain and overruled defendant’s objection. The jurors were instructed with CALCRIM No. 207 as requested by the People.4 They were also instructed with CALCRIM No. 3501. They were advised of defendant’s charges and the dates, and then instructed: “The People have presented evidence of more than one act to prove that the defendant committed these offenses. You must not find the defendant guilty unless: [¶] 1. You all agree that the People have proved that the defendant committed at least one of these acts and you all agree on which act he committed for each offense; [¶] OR [¶] 2. You all agree that the People have proved that the defendant committed all the acts alleged to have occurred during this time period and have proved that the defendant committed at least the number of offenses charged.” During closing, the prosecutor referred to E.Doe’s statement to Detective Olivares that the first incident occurred in January 2024. The prosecutor also recognized that at other times she stated the molestations occurred in February 2024. She was not certain of the dates. The molestations occurred four times at Grandmother’s house. It was up to the jury to decide E.Doe’s credibility. Also, the prosecutor argued, “[w]e saw on the 4 The parties stipulated that the court reporter did not have to report the jury instructions read to the jury. 13 calendar with defense they only spent the night about one time February/March of ’24.” The prosecutor advised the jurors that the People did not have to prove exactly when the sexual molestation occurred. Defendant’s counsel argued in response that E.Doe was clear that these events occurred in February 2024. E.Doe also stated that the offenses only happened when she stayed the night at Grandmother’s house. There was only one weekend in February 2024 where it was unclear if E.Doe was with defendant on an overnight visit. The prosecutor argued in rebuttal, “We talked about [E.Doe] said unequivocally, this happened in February, but she didn’t say until she had been on the stand for two days. We had taken the breaks. She had been crying. She wasn’t asked open ended questions. She was asked yes or no’s. Because originally, unequivocally, she told [O.Doe] the last incident happen[ed] in January. You get to judge [E.Doe] and [O.Doe].” The jury only reached a verdict on one count for E.Doe. 2. ANALYSIS “Due process of law requires that an accused be advised of the charges against him so that he has a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present his defense and not be taken by surprise by evidence offered at his trial.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 317.) “The precise time at which the offense was committed need not be stated in the accusatory pleading, but it may be alleged to have been committed at any time before the finding or filing thereof, except where the time is a material ingredient in the offense.” (§ 955.) “An instruction on time limitation in cases where there is alibi 14 evidence depends on the circumstances of the case.” (People v. Wrigley (1968) 69 Cal.2d 149, 158.) Defendant relies on People v. Barney (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 490 (Barney) to support his claim that the trial court erred by refusing to modify CALCRIM No. 207 to specify that E.Doe’s testimony provided that all of the sexual molestations occurred in February 2024. In Barney, the defendant was charged with two lewd acts, one of which was alleged to have occurred “on or about February 8, 1981.” The victim’s testimony at trial made it clear that the act must have occurred sometime on the weekend of February 7 and 8. “Accordingly, the People’s evidence fixed the commission of the offense to that period to the exclusion of any other time.” (Id. at p. 498.) The defendant presented evidence showing a lack of opportunity to commit the offense on either of those dates. (Ibid.) There was also testimony that the defendant had committed other lewd acts on the victim in the months before the February 7 or February 8 offense. (Ibid.) The appellate court found that, in the circumstances, there was “a substantial possibility the jury was misled concerning the necessity to agree defendant molested the child during the weekend of February 7 and 8. [¶] ... The [trial court’s] instruction that the prosecution need not specifically prove the time of the charged offense, coupled with the prosecution argument it need prove only a last act, not the time of the last act, was error. This error was not harmless. The jury may well have believed defendant’s witnesses concerning his lack of opportunity on the weekend in question or, because of its vagueness and alteration, disbelieved [the victim’s] testimony of the terminal act. The jury may have 15 convicted him on the erroneous assumption it was proper to conclude some terminal act in the unrebutted series occurred near the weekend in question.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.) In People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, the court addressed the finding in Barney, and found, “As is clear, the Barney court did not hold that the information must plead the exact date of the offense. Instead, it merely held that when the prosecution’s proof establishes the offense occurred on a particular day to the exclusion of other dates, and when the defense is alibi (or lack of opportunity), it is improper to give the jury an instruction using the ‘on or about’ language. [Citation.] This holding is unremarkable, being consistent with past authority.” (Id. at pp. 358-359.) This case differs from Barney as E.Doe did not testify exclusively as to the date the four instances of sexual abuse occurred. In her initial statement to the police, she stated that the molestations occurred possibly beginning in January 2024. She was uncertain if they first happened in January or before or after her birthday. In her trial testimony, on cross-examination, she agreed with defense counsel’s statement that all the abuse occurred in February 2024. She also stated on direct that she was 12 years old when the sexual offenses occurred and her birthday was in February 2024. Defendant’s claim rests on the contention that only E.Doe’s trial testimony was relevant as to the time frame for the sexual offenses. However, he provides no authority that the trial court, in an abundance of caution, was estopped from considering the totality of the evidence presented to the jury in finding that the relevant time period was a longer time frame. The totality of the evidence, unlike in Barney, did not establish a specific date to the exclusion of other dates. The jury could reasonably conclude that E.Doe’s 16 initial statement to the police showed that she was uncertain as to the time frame, but believed that it may have commenced in January 2024. As noted by the trial court, the time frame was not entirely clear, and it was a jury question, and defense counsel was free to argue credibility. “Courts should not require that a child victim of sexual abuse be able to testify about the time of the offense with more precision than the victims of other types of crimes.” (People v. Avina (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 48, 56.) The exact dates of the four sexual offenses were not set to the exclusion of other dates by E.Doe’s and other testimony. The trial court did not make an error by providing the time frame of January 2024 through July 2024 as when the sexual abuse could have occurred. This did not mean the prosecution was absolved of its duty to prove the sexual offenses occurred, and it did not stop defendant from arguing that the jury should rely on E.Doe’s trial testimony only and there was no opportunity during February 2024. Further, defendant only provided an alibi for three of the weekends in February, and none for the rest of the time period. Defendant has failed to show that the trial court erred by giving the instruction without modification and has failed to show there was a violation of his due process rights. B. IN CAMERA REVIEW OF SCHOOL RECORDS Defendant requests that this court conduct an independent review of the complaining witness’s school records reviewed in camera by the trial court to determine whether there was any relevant or exculpatory material that should have been disclosed. The People have no objection to this Court’s review of the records. 17  Prior to trial, defendant’s counsel subpoenaed the school records for Jane Doe 2, which was O.Doe. Defendant’s counsel asked that the trial court review the records to determine if there was any exculpatory or relevant information that should be disclosed to the defense. On December 9, 2024, the trial court stated that it had reviewed the records in camera the prior Friday and concluded that there was nothing that needed to be disclosed to defense counsel. The trial court found, after reviewing the records, that there were not “any acts of moral turpitude, any reports of lying, any misconduct, whatsoever, by the Jane Doe girl. And I didn’t see any relevance in the records. I was asked to review them in camera, and I did, and I didn’t see anything that would apply to our trial.” The trial court concluded there was nothing in the records that was relevant, exculpatory or tended to incriminate O.Doe. “In a criminal action, no party, or attorney or representative of a party, may issue a subpoena commanding the custodian of records or other qualified witness of a business to provide books, papers, documents, or records, or copies thereof, relating to a person or entity other than the subpoenaed person or entity in any manner other than that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1560 of the Evidence Code. When a defendant has issued a subpoena to a person or entity that is not a party for the production of books, papers, documents, or records, or copies thereof, the court may order an in camera hearing to determine whether or not the defense is entitled to receive the documents. The court may not order the documents disclosed to the prosecution except as required by Section 1054.3.” (§ 1326, subd. (e); see also Kling v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1068, 1074-1075.) “The court must review the requested records in camera to determine what 18 information, if any, should be disclosed.” (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 179.) A trial court’s decision on the discoverability of material is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. (See People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1105 [discovery addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court]; see also People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 311 [discovery of peace officer personnel records are “ ‘addressed solely to the sound discretion of the trial court’ ”] The records reviewed by the trial court were provided to this court. We have reviewed the school records. The custodian of records for Yucaipa- Calimesa Unified School District attested that he had provided all of the school records for O.Doe. These records included report cards, attendance information, evaluations, health records and standardized tests. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding there was no exculpatory or relevant information that would have been helpful to the defense. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed in full. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. MILLER J. We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. LEE J. 19