Barlow v. Superior Court
Filed 4/9/07 Barlow v. Superior Court CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
JAMES TOURES BARLOW, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest. | A117188 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR164267) |
BY THE COURT:[1]
James Toures Barlow petitions for a writ of mandate to compel respondent superior court to perform its duties pursuant to the March 29, 2006 order to show cause issued in A112887 by rendering a decision on the merits of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. On March 29, 2006, we issued an order stating that petitioner Barlow had made out a prima facie case for relief for juror misconduct and directed the Director of the Department of Corrections to show cause before the Solano County Superior Court why the judgment should not be vacated, citing In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 875-876, fn. 4. Our order also directed the Solano County Superior Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Timothy Curtis Rachal is the son of juror Bennie Rachal and, if so, whether the prosecution is able to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from her failure to disclose that relationship and Timothys criminal record on voir dire. Respondent court held the hearing, made the requested factual findings, but did not issue a decision.
Petitioner correctly contends that the superior courts failure to render a decision is contrary to our order and the law set forth in In re Hochberg, supra, 2 Cal.3d 870. Hochberg explains that when a court makes the order to show cause returnable before a lower court, that court must decide the issues before it and dispose of the petition as the justice of the case may require. (Pen. Code, 1484.) When we order the respondent to show cause before the superior court why the relief prayed for in a petition for habeas corpus should not be granted, we do more than simply transfer the petition to that court and more than simply afford the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence in support of the allegations of the petition; we institute a proceeding in which issues of fact are to be framed and decided. (In re Hochberg, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 875-876, fn. 4.)
Opposition filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the People concedes that petitioner is entitled to an order directing the superior court to render a decision on the merits of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
We have reached our decision after notice to all parties that we might act by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) The entitlement to relief is obvious and has been conceded. Accordingly, let a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding respondent court to render a decision on the merits of the petition for writ of habeas corpus in A112887. Our decision is final as to this court immediately. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1]Before Kline, P.J., Haerle, J., and Richman, J.
