Geier v. Superior Court
Filed 2/5/13 Geier 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
CHRISTOPHER GEIER,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real
Party in Interest.
E057604
(Super.Ct.No.
RCR20413)
OPINION
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate.
Stephan G. Saleson, Judge.
Petition granted.
Sean
K. Kennedy, Federal Public Defender, Lauren Collins, Jennifer Hope Turner,
Deputy Federal Public Defenders; Coffin Law Group and Lynne S. Coffin for
Petitioner.
No appearance for
Respondent.
Michael
A. Ramos, District Attorney, and Brent J. Schultze, Deputy District Attorney, for
Real Party in Interest.
DISCUSSION
In
this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the response filed by real party in
interest, and petitioner’s reply. We
have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of
settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first
instance is therefore appropriate. (
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Petitioner’s
basic entitlement to postconviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9
is clear. Even applying the “good causeâ€
requirement, the statute only requires petitioner to show that the requested
evidence is material to his “effort
to obtain relief.†(Pen. Code, § 1054.9,
subd. (c), italics added.) He is not
required to demonstrate that it will in fact be exculpatory.
We
respectfully disagree with the trial court’s view that this request may be
rejected because a similar substantive
argument, to that which he now seeks to support, has been rejected by the
Supreme Court in a previous habeas corpus petition. The distinction between this case and
Cal.App.4th 1100, is that in Hurd, the
court was applying a similar procedural bar—based on its own prior decision—to
a case currently pending before it.
Here,
the current and any future habeas corpus petitions are for the Supreme Court to
decide. In our view, it is improper for
a lower court to base its denial on the determination that petitioner’s claims
consider petitioner’s claims on the merits despite previous attempts to raise
similar issues. Accordingly, the claims
should not be preemptively ruled to be barred by a lower court.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly,
the petition for writ of mandate is granted.
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of
San Bernardino County vacate its order denying petitioner’s motion for
postconviction discovery and to enter a new order granting said motion.
Petitioner
is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies
served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with
proof of service on all parties.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
