Hampton v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Aug 31, 2015 No. E063910Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted a petition for writ of mandate ordering the trial court to identify the court reporter from the petitioner's sentencing hearing and to reimburse the petitioner for any transcript fees paid if the transcripts were not provided.

Issues

Whether the trial court must provide the name of the court reporter who transcribed the petitioner's sentencing hearing.
Whether the trial court must reimburse the petitioner for transcript fees paid for transcripts that were never received.

Disposition. Petition granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“respondent has not indicated why it cannot provide the name of the court reporter who transcribed the sentencing hearing. It also failed to answer petitioner’s allegation that he paid for transcripts but has not been reimbursed.”

“the trial court is ordered to release that information to petitioner. In addition, we order the trial court to assess whether petitioner did, in fact, pay for transcripts. If he did and he has not been reimbursed, the trial court is to return”

Filed 8/31/15 Hampton v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

EDDIE LEE HAMPTON,

Petitioner, E063910

v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB17394)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Katrina West, Judge.

Petition granted.

Eddie Lee Hampton, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition, requested an informal response from

respondent, and received no such filing. We have determined that resolution of the

matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that the equities favor

petitioners. We conclude 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,

Hampton v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

EDDIE LEE HAMPTON,

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

RAMIREZ P. J.

CODRINGTON J.

AI Brief