Smith v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jul 7, 2015 No. E063336Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court must vacate its order denying the petitioner's request for post-conviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 and reconsider the request on its merits.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a request for post-conviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 without a point-by-point determination on the merits.
Whether a petitioner is required to first request discovery from the People before seeking relief under Penal Code section 1054.9.

Disposition. Granted in part; remanded with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we are persuaded that he is entitled to a point-by-point determination on the merits of his requests.”

“We are not persuaded that the statute requires petitioner to first request discovery from the People”

“Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order denying petitioner’s request, and to reconsider the request on the merits.”

Filed 7/7/15 Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ROBERT SMITH,

Petitioner, E063336

v. (Super.Ct.No. ICR15111)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. James S. Hawkins,

Judge. Petition is granted.

Robert Smith, Jr., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, Alan D. Tate, Deputy District Attorney, for

Real Party in Interest.

DISCUSSION

Trial courts have little discretion to deny a request for post-conviction discovery

under Penal Code section 1054.9. (See Catlin v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 300.)

As the statute does not provide for representation by counsel (cf. Pen. Code, § 1405,

Smith v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ROBERT SMITH,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

THE PEOPLE,

DISCUSSION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST J.

KING J.

AI Brief