Yoder v. Superior Court CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/10/24 Yoder v. Superior Court CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Nevada)
----
WYATT ALLEN YODER, C099768
Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. CR0002167)
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEVADA COUNTY,
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
This petition for writ of mandate by Wyatt Allen Yoder challenges an August 11,
2023, decision by respondent Nevada County Superior Court denying bail. Petitioner
claims respondent court erred in denying him bail because he does not fall within any of
the exceptions to the general right to bail set forth in article I, section 12 of the California
Constitution (section 12). We agree.
1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2023, petitioner was charged by amended complaint with: (1)
transporting, importing, selling, furnishing, administering, gifting, or attempting to
import and transport a controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety Code section
11352, subdivision (a); (2) possessing a concealed firearm in a vehicle in violation of
Penal Code section 25400, subdivision (a)(1); (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm
in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1); (4) possessing for sale a
controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11378; (5) selling,
offering to sell and/or transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health & Safety
Code section 11379, subdivision (a); and (6) possessing for sale a controlled substance in
violation of Health & Safety Code section 11351. On August 11, 2023, at a bail review
hearing, respondent court denied petitioner’s request for pretrial release and ordered that
his bail remain set at no bail.
On November 9, 2023, this court advised the parties that it was considering
treating the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court as a petition for writ of
mandate and requested real party in interest, the People, serve and file an informal written
response to the petition. The Attorney General filed an informal response on behalf of
real party in interest on December 7, 2023, informing the court that the People do not
defend the superior court’s order. We subsequently directed the petition be treated as a
petition for writ of mandate and advised the parties that we were considering issuing a
peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance and provided additional time to file any
further opposition. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171.)
DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims he is entitled to bail based on section 12. Section 12 provides in
relevant part: “A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for: [¶]
(a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great; [¶] (b) Felony
offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses
2
on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court 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; or [¶] (c) Felony offenses
when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and
convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and
that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released.”
Petitioner does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in section 12.
Accordingly, we find he is entitled to bail consistent with the reasoning of the court in In
re Kowalczyk (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 667, review granted March 15, 2023, S277910,
which holds that persons who do not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in section
12 are entitled to bail. (Kowalczyk, at pp. 684-685.)
3
DISPOSITION
Having complied with the procedural requirements for issuance of a peremptory
writ in the first instance, we are authorized to issue a peremptory writ forthwith and
without oral argument. (See Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010)
47 Cal.4th 1233, 1243-1244; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., supra, 36 Cal.3d at
p. 178.) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing Nevada County Superior Court
to: (1) vacate its August 11, 2023, ruling denying petitioner bail; and (2) hold a new bail
hearing consistent with the procedures described in In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th
135, which sets forth the relevant factors the court must consider in determining bail. (Id.
at pp. 152-156.) This opinion shall become final immediately upon filing. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
/s/
EARL, P.J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, J.
/s/
DUARTE, J.
4