People v. Standish Part III

People v. Standish Filed 6/5/06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA <a name="plaintiff"></a>THE PEOPLE, ) ) <a name="LD"></a>Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S<a name="casenum"></a>129755 v. ) ) <a name="appealnum"></a>Ct.App. 2/3 B166344 <a name="defendant"></a>JARED JACOB STANDISH, ) ) <a name="county"></a>Los Angeles County <a name="VD"></a>Defendant and Respondent. ) <a name="supernum"></a>Super. Ct. No. MA025716 __________________________________ ) Story continue from part II â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.. Accordingly, we do not accept the view that <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California Constitution article I, section 12 confers judicial discretion that must remain free from legislative interference.</a> We do not believe that a constitutional grant of general authority to the courts necessarily constitutes a restriction on the power of the Legislature to place reasonable limits upon a court's exercise of discretion in certain instances -- any more than a court's <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">inherent power</a> over its times of operation would bar the Legislature from establishing a limited restriction on that power of the court. Nor do we believe it would defeat or materially impair the courts' exercise of judicial power to permit the Legislature to direct courts to grant or deny OR release under specified circumstances. Next, the People draw our attention to the circumstance that defendant could have been denied bail pursuant to article I, section 12 because of public safety concerns related to the charged crimes. (In fact, the court did set bail for defendant.) The People claim it would be â€