Crisostomo v. Sup. Ct

Filed 4/12/06 Crisostomo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard W. Stanford Jr., Judge. Petition granted.

Michael Ian Garey for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Brian Fitzpatrick, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT:

^*

Petitioner, Juan Carlos Crisostomo, is charged with possession for sale of cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. He is asking the court to order the superior court to grant his Penal Code section 995^[1] motion to set aside the information on the basis that he was denied the right to conflict-free counsel when counsel adversely represented his interest at the preliminary hearing. The petition is granted.

FACTS

A search warrant was executed at Juan Carlos Crisostomo's^[2] home based on an alleged narcotics transaction involving him earlier in the day. After their bedroom was searched, Crisostomo and his brother Roberto were arrested and charged with one count each of possession of marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine for sale. With the assistance of a Spanish-speaking interpreter, Crisostomo and Roberto were arraigned on a felony complaint. The dockets^[3] indicate that at the time of their arraignment on February 18, 2005, both brothers were represented by retained attorney Roger Shafer. Although there were no discussions in court regarding a conflict waiver, the docket entry for March 29, 2005, states â€