Filed 6/17/26; Certified for Publication 7/13/26 (order attached)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
E087390
In re Leo Daniel King (Super.Ct.No. FWV25001352)
on Habeas Corpus. OPINION
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Enrique
Guerrero, Judge. Petition granted.
Civil Rights Corps, Katherine Hubbard, Carson White, and Salil Dudani for
Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Jason Anderson, District Attorney, and Brent J. Schultze, Deputy District Attorney
for Real Party in Interest.
In Yedinak v. Superior Court (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 876 (Yedinak), we outlined
the requirements a trial court must follow before denying a defendant bail and ordering
1
pretrial detention. Among other requirements, the trial court must find that no alternative
to detention can protect countervailing interests, and it must do so by stating its reasons
with enough specificity to permit appellate review. Because the trial court did not do so
here, we grant Leo Daniel King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 1
I. BACKGROUND
King owed either $10,000 or $20,000 to his cousin, Jeremy Michael Juneau. One
night, King met with Juneau, and according to King, after Juneau learned that King did
not have the money, Juneau pulled a gun on King. The two then struggled, and King shot
Juneau multiple times with Juneau’s gun. Juneau was found dead at the scene with his
pockets turned inside out, some common items (like a phone and wallet) missing, and his
shoes placed next to his body. Detectives found King the next day in his car as he was
leaving home. Inside the car was a backpack containing more than $5,000.
King was charged with Juneau’s murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). He requested that bail
be set at $100,000, an amount he said could afford. He proposed the court could also
impose other conditions such as GPS monitoring, checking in with probation, and a
prohibition on possessing firearms. The trial court denied bail. King then noted that he
suffered from congenital heart failure and that his heart operates “at basically 25
percent.” The trial court stated it would keep its original ruling.
1
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
King petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, arguing that the trial court
failed to follow Yedinak by, among other reasons, not adequately considering alternatives
to detention. We issued an alternative writ, directing the trial court to either vacate its
2
order and conduct a new bail hearing under Yedinak or show cause. After we were
informed that the trial court vacated its order and held a new hearing, we discharged the
petition.
At the second hearing, King again argued that less restrictive alternatives to
detention could be imposed. He submitted 27 letters from members of the community
attesting to his character. He described extensive ties to the community and said that he
would have no reason to flee given that his heart operates at a greatly reduced capacity.
In response, the prosecutor argued that GPS monitoring would be insufficient, and that
the fact King was found in a car with over $5,000 shows he was trying to flee. King
responded that possessing large amounts of cash did not signal an intent to flee because
Juneau was also known to carry large amounts of cash.
The trial court again denied King bail. King then filed a second petition for
habeas corpus in this court, which we summarily denied. King petitioned for review in
the California Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court granted the petition for review and
transferred the case back to our court with instructions to set an order to show cause.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order, we vacated our summary denial and ordered the
2
On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the record in case number
E086704, King’s earlier writ petition.
3
People to show cause why King “is not entitled to relief on the ground [that the trial
court’s second bail denial] failed to address the feasibility of less restrictive alternatives
to detention with sufficient specificity to facilitate review of its detention order.”
II. ANALYSIS
“Our state constitution entitles arrestees to bail unless one of a limited number of
exceptions applies. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 12.) The exception at issue here, set out in
[article I, section 12, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution (section 12(b))],
provides that a trial judge may deny bail when a defendant is charged with a felony
offense ‘involving acts of violence on another person . . . when the facts are evident or
the presumption great’ and the judge ‘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.’” (Yedinak, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 884; see also In re Kowalczyk (2026)
19 Cal.5th 593, 630 [“a court may order the pretrial detention of a noncapital defendant
only in the circumstances specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 12 [of article I
of the California Constitution]”].)
In Yedinak, we noted that California Supreme Court caselaw imposed two more
requirements for the so-called violent felony exception to apply. (Yedinak, supra, 92
Cal.App.5th at p. 886.) In sum, “a trial judge must satisfy four legal requirements before
issuing a pretrial detention order under section 12(b). The judge must: (1) find there is
sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict against the arrestee on a qualifying felony;
(2) find by clear and convincing evidence a substantial likelihood that the arrestee’s
4
release would result in great bodily harm to others; (3) find by clear and convincing
evidence that no less restrictive condition than detention can reasonably protect the
interests in public or victim safety, and the arrestee’s appearance in court; and (4) set
forth the reasons for their decision on the record and include them in the minute order.”
(Ibid., citing In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455 and In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135
(Humphrey).)
Per our order to show cause, only the third and fourth Yedinak factors are at issue
here. We hold the trial court did not adequately satisfy either factor.
At the beginning of its ruling from the bench, the trial court said it had “considered
less restrictive alternatives set forth on the record, including the GPS and bail setting,”
and that it would “go through [its] analysis on this.” It discussed its reasoning as to the
first two Yedinak factors. It then stated:
“The court’s also going to find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant
Mr. King presents a flight risk and that the charge here does subject him to an
indeterminate exposure of life and, therefore, the potential penalty for the charged offense
is great.
“I have considered the least restrictive alternatives. I have considered the
character letters that have been submitted on Mr. King’s behalf, his ties to the
community, his employment within the community, the long-standing history of the
people who have gone through his business, that have worked with him, the support
within the community that’s been represented through the character letters.
5
“I have considered the least restrictive—or at least an alternative means of
ensuring his appearance in court, including the letter provide[d] by [King’s counsel]
for—through GPS Monitoring Solutions that he’s already been accepted should the court
make the order.
“And I’ve also considered not only his medical situation, but the representation by
[King’s counsel] that [King] can afford bail if the court were to set bail at $100,000.
“I’m balancing between not only these least restrictive means as well as whether
he presents both a danger and a flight risk to the community. And as of right now, based
on the evidence I’ve heard for this hearing, I’m going to go ahead and deny bail. Again,
as I’ve stated before, I’ve considered least restrictive alternatives as set forth on the
record. I am finding by clear and convincing evidence that he presents both a flight risk
and a danger to the community.”
The trial court made no express finding by clear and convincing evidence that no
less restrictive condition than detention could reasonably protect public safety or
guarantee King’s appearance. It found that King was a flight risk and a danger to the
community, but that is different from finding that nothing less than detention could
protect the government’s and public’s interests. “An arrestee may not be held in custody
pending trial unless the court has made an individualized determination that . . . detention
is necessary to protect victim or public safety, or ensure the defendant’s appearance, and
there is clear and convincing evidence that no less restrictive alternative will reasonably
vindicate those interests.” (Humphrey, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 156, italics added.) At
6
best, the trial court balanced the less restrictive conditions King proposed against his
flight risk and danger to the community. However, stating that a group of interests
outweighs another is not the same as finding, under a heightened evidentiary standard,
that some of those interests cannot be adequately protected. Moreover, because
“Humphrey specifically requires, as a matter of procedural due process, that a court
entering a pretrial detention order set forth ‘the reasons for its decision on the record and
to include them in the court’s minutes,’” “the reasons supporting a denial of bail cannot
be implied.” (In re Harris (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1105 (Harris), reversed in part
on other grounds in In re Harris (2024) 16 Cal.5th 292.)
The trial court did not just fail to justify its reasoning for a “no less restrictive
condition” finding with enough specificity, it made no express “no less restrictive
condition” finding at all. We emphasize that on remand, the trial court must do more
than consider less restrictive conditions, as it appears to have done here. It must discuss
why each less restrictive condition offered, and why all of them collectively, would not
reasonably protect public safety or guarantee King’s appearance. (See Yedinak, supra, 92
Cal.App.5th at p. 888 [“[A]s far as we can tell from the record, the judge considered only
a single less restrictive alternative: an order prohibiting Yedinak from being in the
unsupervised presence of children. However, under Humphrey not only must she
consider more than one alternative, she must also—in the event she finds the considered
alternatives insufficient to protect public safety—articulate why and make the finding by
clear and convincing evidence.”].) It must also expressly consider factors such as King’s
7
previous criminal record and history of compliance with court orders. (See Humphrey,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 152.)
The People contend that King forfeited the issue by failing to request a ruling on
why his proposed less restrictive conditions were insufficient. On this, we agree with
Harris: “[A] petitioner who urges the availability of less restrictive alternatives to
detention exhausts his or her superior court remedies as to that issue, and generally will
be entitled to review of that issue,” and “implicitly, such a petitioner also requests that the
court provide an adequate statement of reasons to allow for meaningful judicial review.”
(Harris, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 1107.) Although Harris recognized forfeiture may
apply to bail denial decisions where “the record indicates the parties were ‘clearly
apprised’ of what the bail decision would be and the reasons for it in advance of the
hearing” (id. at p. 1108), such an exception does not apply here.
The People also argue any error was harmless. Harris noted an “apparent tension
in the case law” as to whether this kind of error requires reversal but did not resolve it, as
the record did not permit meaningful appellate review or contain “overwhelming
evidence” supporting the trial court’s conclusion. (Harris, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p.
1106.) The same is true here. The court’s mention of King’s less restrictive alternatives
to detention does not permit meaningful appellate review, and we cannot say that there
was overwhelming evidence that those alternatives could not reasonably protect public
safety or guarantee King’s appearance in court. There is some evidence in support of a
different conclusion: King has a severe heart condition requiring medical care, he
8
submitted over two dozen character letters, and the gun that led the trial court to believe
3
that King could access firearms was Juneau’s gun.
III. DISPOSITION
The petition is granted. Respondent superior court is directed to vacate its pretrial
detention order of October 6, 2025 and hold a new hearing at which the court considers
petitioner’s motion in a manner that complies with Humphrey, supra, 11 Cal.5th 135,
Yedinak, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th 876, and this opinion.
RAPHAEL
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MILLER
J.
3
In finding the second Yedinak factor—“a substantial likelihood that the
defendant’s release would result in great bodily harm to others” based on clear and
convincing evidence (Yedinak, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 886)—the trial court noted
that Juneau’s gun was unregistered (or a “ghost” gun) and “that because . . . this ghost
gun was used in the commission of this offense, the court believes that Mr. King will
have access to firearms given the nature that he came into possession of a ghost gun.”
9
Filed 7/13/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
E087390
In re Leo Daniel King (Super.Ct.No. FWV25001352)
on Habeas Corpus. ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION
FOR PUBLICATION
THE COURT:
We have received a request pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1120(a),
for publication of a nonpublished opinion, filed in the above matter on July 6, 2026. It
appears that the opinion meets the standards for publication as specified in California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that said opinion be certified for publication
pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b). The opinion filed in this matter on
June 17, 2026, is certified for publication.
RAPHAEL
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
P. J.
MILLER
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
J.
MAILING LIST FOR CASE: E087390
In re Leo King on Habeas Corpus
Superior Court Clerk
San Bernardino County
8303 N. Haven Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Katherine Hubbard
Civil Rights Corps
1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Carson White
Civil Rights Corps
1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Salil Dudani
Civil Rights Corps
9861 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Brent J. Schultze
San Bernardino District Attorney's Office
Appellate Services Unit
303 W. Third Street, Fifth Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0511