Pride v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 ( 2014 )

Filed 10/30/14 Pride v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
DAVID C. PRIDE,
Petitioner, E061385
v. (Super.Ct.No. SCR57051)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Annemarie G. Pace,
Judge. Petition granted in part with directions.
David C. Pride, in pro. per, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, and Stephanie H. Zeitlin, Deputy District
Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
1
In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party
in interest. 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. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 171,
178.)
DISCUSSION
There is no requirement in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 682 (Steele) that a
defendant seeking discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 prove that he or she has an
actual, physical petition for writ of habeas corpus waiting for the “final touches.” All that
is required is that such a petition be in some state of preparation (Steele, at p. 691; Curl v.
Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 310.) The petition is not inadequate in this
respect. Although petitioner may not be entitled to all items sought, his request has
sufficient specificity and clarity and Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th
359 does not apply. Nor do the cases require a defendant to articulate his or her theories
of relief before obtaining the statutory discovery. Finally, we decline to hold that the
absence of a proof of service of the demand letters to trial counsel invalidates petitioner’s
request.
Hence, we can find no basis for the trial court’s flat denial of the motion for
discovery.
2
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted in part. Let a peremptory
writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to vacate its
order summarily denying the request for discovery, and to reconsider the motion with
respect to each category of items requested. The court may request such further briefing
as it deems appropriate.
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:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
MILLER
J.
3