Sturm v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 2/7/07 Sturm v. Sup. Ct. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
GREGORY ALLEN STURM, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party In Interest. | G036535 (Super. Ct. No. C82847) O P I N I O N |
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daniel J. Didier, Judge. Petition denied without prejudice as moot.
Habeas Corpus Resource Center and Gary D. Sowards, Miro F. Cizin, and Susan E. Garvey, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Tony R. Rackauckas, District Attorney, and James J. Mulgrew, Senior Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner, Gregory Allen Sturm, seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying his supplemental motion for release of physical evidence and postconviction discovery and issue a new order granting his motion. Sturm argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion because the discovery he requested falls within one or more of the categories of discoverable evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9[1] as delineated by the California Supreme Court in In re Steele (2004)
32 Cal.4th 682 (Steele). As we explain below, because the California Supreme Court in People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218 (Sturm), reversed Sturm's death sentence and subsequently denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus, we deny his petition for writ of mandate without prejudice as moot.
FACTS
In 1992, a jury convicted Sturm of three counts of first degree murder
(§ 187), one count of burglary (§ 459), three counts of robbery (§ 211), and one count of attempted escape by a prisoner (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1)). The jury did not reach a verdict on whether Sturm committed premeditated and deliberate first degree murder. The jury found true Sturm personally used a firearm in the commission of the murders and robberies (§ 12022.5), committed the murders while in the commission of second degree burglary and robbery (former § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(vii), § 211), and committed multiple first degree murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). (Sturm, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 1221-1222.)
At the first penalty phase trial, the jury could not reach a penalty verdict, and the trial court declared a mistrial. A juror poll revealed they were split 10 to 2, with the majority favoring a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
At the second penalty phase trial, the jury concluded â€
