Bowen v. Superior Court CA4/3

Filed 6/3/21 Bowen v. Superior Court CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

GREGG STANLEY BOWEN,

Petitioner,

v. G060226

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. 21HF0320) COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Petition granted. Martin Schwarz, Public Defender, Matthew Darling, Deputy Public Defender for petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney for real party in interest. Lewis Robert Rosenblum, Law Office of Lewis R. Rosenblum for real party in interest Nicholas Leland.

* THE COURT: Respondent court granted real party’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum seeking real party’s personal cell phone number and the name of the service provider for the cell phone. Petitioner contends respondent court abused its discretion when it granted the motion to quash. We agree, and therefore grant the petition.

PROCEDURAL FACTS Petitioner, Gregg Stanley Bowen, is charged in an information with assault with a deadly weapon involving a pellet gun, domestic battery with corporal injury, and enhancements for great bodily injury, two strikes and two, five year prison priors. The underlying facts are unknown other than what is described in the petition, which states petitioner and his girlfriend, the alleged victim, contacted 9-1-1 and explained that a pellet gun discharged by accident. According to petitioner, real party in interest Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy Nicholas Leland was the first deputy to respond to the call and also the arresting officer in this case. Petitioner states that at the preliminary hearing Deputy Leland testified that he failed to log into the police vehicle surveillance system (PVS) during the initial investigation to record the events of petitioner’s detention and arrest. Petitioner states the deputy also testified that he made and received “at least ten phone calls during the investigation, two of which he could recall were from other deputies involved in the investigation.” According to petitioner, Deputy Leland admitted using his personal cell phone for official business, “[h]owever, when pressed for details of the names, the length of the calls and a description of the items discussed, Leland could not recall.” Petitioner explains that much later during the investigation Deputy Leland eventually logged into the PVS, but muted the recording “[e]ach time [he] made or received a phone call . . .