Hayes v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 9/20/23 Hayes v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

AMIR MALIK HAYES, C099237

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR- FECOD-2023-0007227) v.

THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

This petition for writ of mandate by Amir Malik Hayes, challenges a July 7, 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 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.

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 7, 2023, petitioner was charged by complaint with unlawful possession of a firearm by a former juvenile ward in violation of Penal Code section 29820, subdivision (b), felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1), possession of ammunition in violation of Penal Code section 30305, subdivision (a)(1), evading an officer with wanton disregard in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), and criminal street gang activity in violation of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a). That same day he was arraigned before the magistrate and denied bail. On September 8, 2023, this court 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.) None was received within the time provided. DISCUSSION Petitioner claims he is entitled to bail based on section 12. That section provides in relevant part: “A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for: “(a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great; “(b) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person’s release would result in great bodily harm to others; or “(c) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released.” Petitioner does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in section 12. Accordingly, we find he is entitled to bail consistent with the reasoning of the court in