CURL v. Sp. Crt. OF FRESNO COUNTY,
Filed 6/9/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| ROBERT ZANE CURL, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent. |
F047313
(Super. Ct. No. F88380748-4)
OPINION |
| THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest. |
|
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Mandate. Stephen Joseph Kane, Judge.
Kevin G. Little and Samya Burney, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kevin Bringuel and Adrienne Toomey as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Ward Campbell and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorney Generals, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
In 1993 petitioner Robert Zane Curl was convicted of the first degree murder of Richard Urban with the special circumstance that petitioner had previously been convicted (in 1977) of second degree murder. He was sentenced to death. His automatic appeal is presently pending before the California Supreme Court. In April of 2004 petitioner filed in superior court a motion for post-conviction discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9.[1] After a flurry of briefing and supplemental briefing, and two hearings, the superior court issued its order on the motion. The court granted three of petitioner's 29 discovery requests (Nos. 8, 10 and B-1), partially granted two others (Nos. 1 and 11) and denied the remaining 24 requests (Nos. 2 through 7, 9, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, B-1, B-2, C-1, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, E-1, E-2, E-3 and E-4).
The court's ruling on petitioner's discovery requests did not include an explanation, for each numbered request, as to why the court was granting or denying the request. The court's ruling gave a general explanation or framework, at the beginning of its ruling, as to the court's understanding of section 1054.9. Part of that framework was that â€
