Pride v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Oct 30, 2014 No. E061385Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant seeking discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 need not have a near-complete habeas petition or articulate specific theories of relief to be entitled to discovery. The trial court erred in summarily denying the discovery motion.

Issues

Whether a defendant must have a near-complete habeas petition to seek discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9.
Whether a defendant must articulate theories of relief to obtain discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9.
Whether the absence of proof of service of demand letters invalidates a discovery request.

Disposition. Granted in part

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no requirement in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 (Steele) that a defendant seeking discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 prove that he or she has an actual, physical petition for writ of habeas corpus waiting for the “final touches.””

“Nor do the cases require a defendant to articulate his or her theories of relief before obtaining the statutory discovery.”

“Hence, we can find no basis for the trial court’s flat denial of the motion for discovery.”

Filed 10/30/14 Pride v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DAVID C. PRIDE,

Petitioner, E061385

v. (Super.Ct.No. SCR57051)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Annemarie G. Pace,

Judge. Petition granted in part with directions.

David C. Pride, in pro. per, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, and Stephanie H. Zeitlin, Deputy District

Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171,

Pride v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DAVID C. PRIDE,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

AI Brief