Dunn v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 7/3/23 Dunn v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin) ----

C098537

JASON ANDREW DUNN, SR., (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR- FMISC-2023-0003976) Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

This petition for writ of mandate by Jason Andrew Dunn, Sr., challenges a March 3, 2023, decision by respondent San Joaquin County Superior Court denying him bail. Petitioner claims respondent court erred in denying him bail because he does not

1

fall within any of the exceptions to the general right to bail set forth in article I, section 12 of the California Constitution (section 12). We agree.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 3, 2023, petitioner was charged by complaint with being a felon in 1 possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) and possession of ammunition in violation of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1). That same day he was arraigned before the magistrate and denied bail. He sought relief in the superior court by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on May 4, 2023. On May 18, 2023, this court advised the parties that it was considering treating the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court as a petition for writ of mandate and requested real party in interest, the People, serve and file an informal written response to the petition. The People filed an opposition on June 12, 2023, and petitioner filed a reply to the opposition on June 15, 2023. We subsequently directed the petition be treated as a petition for writ of mandate and advised the parties that we were considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance and provided additional time to file any further opposition. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171.)