Anderson v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 8/11/25 Anderson v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

DION ANDERSON, C101862 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 98F11084) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Dion Anderson alleges he was disparately charged with greater firearm enhancements due to his race. He is Black. In this writ proceeding, petitioner challenges the trial court’s order finding that he failed to demonstrate good cause to obtain evidence from the district attorney’s office relevant to a potential violation of the Racial Justice Act. We reject petitioner’s challenge and deny his petition for writ of mandate. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1999, the People charged petitioner with two counts of attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211; counts 1 & 13), one count of attempted carjacking (§§ 664, 215, subd. (a); count 2), one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 3), one count of burglary (§ 459; count 4), six counts of robbery (§ 211; counts 5, 6, 9, 11, 16 & 17), one count of theft and unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 7), four counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts 8, 10, 12 & 14), and one count of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count 15). The People also alleged firearm enhancements under various statutes, including section 12022.53, subdivision (b). A judge found petitioner guilty of all counts, except counts 6 and 11, and found true the associated firearm enhancements. The judge sentenced petitioner to an aggregate term of 49 years and 2 months in prison, including 28 years on the firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivision (b). After the Racial Justice Act was enacted, petitioner filed a motion in propria persona for discovery under section 745, subdivision (d). The motion claimed the district attorney charged firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) against petitioner even though the more lenient section 12022.5 was also applicable. Petitioner claimed this was a systematic practice against Black and other minority criminal defendants around the time of his underlying case. He cited his own race and sentence to support this claim. The trial court found petitioner failed to show good cause and denied the petition. We issued an order to show cause. DISCUSSION Petitioner contends the allegations in his petition, along with publicly available statistical information showing racial disparities in the application of firearm enhancements, were sufficient to establish good cause for discovery under the Racial Justice Act. We disagree.