Sturm v. Sup. Ct.
Petitioner, 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 as delineated by the California Supreme Court in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 (Steele). As court 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, court deny his petition for writ of mandate without prejudice as moot.
Comments on Sturm v. Sup. Ct.