Yoder v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 1/10/24 Yoder v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

WYATT ALLEN YODER, C099768

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. CR0002167)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEVADA COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

This petition for writ of mandate by Wyatt Allen Yoder challenges an August 11, 2023, decision by respondent Nevada County Superior Court denying 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 August 8, 2023, petitioner was charged by amended complaint with: (1) transporting, importing, selling, furnishing, administering, gifting, or attempting to import and transport a controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a); (2) possessing a concealed firearm in a vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 25400, subdivision (a)(1); (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1); (4) possessing for sale a controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11378; (5) selling, offering to sell and/or transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a); and (6) possessing for sale a controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11351. On August 11, 2023, at a bail review hearing, respondent court denied petitioner’s request for pretrial release and ordered that his bail remain set at no bail. On November 9, 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 Attorney General filed an informal response on behalf of real party in interest on December 7, 2023, informing the court that the People do not defend the superior court’s order. 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.) DISCUSSION Petitioner claims he is entitled to bail based on section 12. Section 12 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