Sepulveda v. Superior Court CA4/3

Filed 1/15/26 Sepulveda v. Superior Court CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JESUS SEPULVEDA,

Petitioner,

v. G064444

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. M-21345 & ORANGE COUNTY, 12NF0846)

Respondent; OPINION

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Petition granted.

Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Todd Spitzer, Orange County District Attorney, and Holly M. Woesner, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest. * * * In this writ proceeding, petitioner Jesus Sepulveda challenges the summary denial of his request for discovery under the California Racial 1 Justice Act of 2020 (RJA or the Act). (Pen. Code, § 745.) Sepulveda made the request in conjunction with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but the trial court ruled RJA discovery is not permitted in that context unless the petitioner first makes a prima facie showing for habeas relief. Because Sepulveda did not make such a showing, the court summarily denied his discovery request without addressing its merits. While Sepulveda’s challenge to that ruling was pending in this court, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1071, which became effective January 1, 2026. (See Stats. 2025–2026, ch. 721 (Assembly Bill 1071).) Designed to expand access to RJA discovery, Assembly Bill 1071 allows defendants to seek such discovery when they file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or in preparation of filing such a petition. Because Assembly Bill 1071 does not condition access to RJA discovery on a prima facie showing for habeas relief, we grant Sepulveda’s petition for a writ of mandate. As requested by Sepulveda, we direct the trial court to vacate its order summarily denying his request for discovery and remand for the court to consider the merits of that request.