legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Garcia v. Super. Ct.

Garcia v. Super. Ct.
05:26:2013





Garcia v






Garcia v. Super. >Ct.>

















Filed 5/9/13 Garcia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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






>






ABEL GARCIA,



Petitioner,



v.



THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY,



Respondent;



CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,



Real Party in Interest.








E058107



(Super.Ct.No. BLC1100334)



OPINION






ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Sarah Adams Christian, Judge. Petition granted.

Abel
Garcia, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No
appearance for Respondent.

No
appearance for Real Party in Interest.

DISCUSSION

The
Court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate/habeas
corpus. We have invited the respondent
court to file an informal response, but it has declined to do so. Accordingly, we will grant the petition.

Petitioner
is an inmate in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
. He filed a petition for writ of mandate in
respondent court that raises issues relating to his criminal conviction. The respondent court required petitioner to
pay a filing fee, directing the director of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to make deductions from petitioner’s inmate
trust account until the filing fee of $410 is paid in full. Although even indigent inmates are required
to make partial payments of filing fees in civil actions (Gov. Code, § 68635),
petitioner in this instance is challenging certain aspects of his href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">criminal conviction. A petition raising such issues is properly
considered a habeas corpus proceeding for which no filing fees can be
required. (Gov. Code, § 6101.) Thus, the respondent court erred in requiring
petitioner to pay filing fees, even though petitioner called his petition one
for mandate relief (cf. Bravo v. Cabell (1974)
11 Cal.3d 834).

DISPOSITION

The Riverside County
Superior Court is directed to set aside its order of November 15, 2011, requiring petitioner to pay filing fees and
directing the director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to
make deductions from petitioner’s trust account for this purpose.



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.

Appellate Defenders, Inc., is appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel to represent petitioner in this
matter.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
OFFICIAL REPORTS



RICHLI

J.

We concur:







KING

J.







RAMIREZ

P. J.























Description The Court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate/habeas corpus. We have invited the respondent court to file an informal response, but it has declined to do so. Accordingly, we will grant the petition.
Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He filed a petition for writ of mandate in respondent court that raises issues relating to his criminal conviction. The respondent court required petitioner to pay a filing fee, directing the director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to make deductions from petitioner’s inmate trust account until the filing fee of $410 is paid in full. Although even indigent inmates are required to make partial payments of filing fees in civil actions (Gov. Code, § 68635), petitioner in this instance is challenging certain aspects of his criminal conviction. A petition raising such issues is properly considered a habeas corpus proceeding for which no filing fees can be required. (Gov. Code, § 6101.) Thus, the respondent court erred in requiring petitioner to pay filing fees, even though petitioner called his petition one for mandate relief (cf. Bravo v. Cabell (1974) 11 Cal.3d 834).
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale