In re Delgado
Filed 9/8/06 In re Delgado CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re EDITH DELGADO, on Habeas Corpus. | A114695 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SF346034) |
By her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Edith Delgado seeks review of an order of the superior court denying her request to reduce bail set at $3 million in a pending prosecution for vehicular manslaughter. We issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be granted. We now grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, vacate the order denying petitioner's motion for bail reduction, and remand the matter for redetermination of the amount of bail in accordance with this opinion.
FACTS
On July 5, 2006, petitioner was taken into custody after a horrific car accident in which three people were killed. Her bail was initially set at $300,000. Two days later, the district attorney seized petitioner's car. A complaint was filed against petitioner, charging her with three counts of vehicular manslaughter under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of section 192 of the Penal Code.[1] It was alleged petitioner acted without malice but with gross negligence when she killed three people as the result of driving in violation of Vehicle Code sections 22350 (basic speed law), 22107 (turning movements and required signals), 21658 (laned roadways), 23109 (speed contests and exhibitions of speed), and 23103 (reckless driving).[2] At petitioner's arraignment on July 7, 2006, the court, on its own motion, increased bail to $3 million.
On or about July 11, 2006, petitioner moved to reduce bail from $3 million to supervised release on her own recognizance or, in the alternative, to $100,000, which is the amount arguably provided by the bail schedule adopted in San Mateo County for vehicular manslaughter under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of section 192 of the Penal Code.[3] Petitioner contended that although she was charged with a serious offense, there was no premeditation, use of weapons, threats to victims or witnesses, or possession of controlled substances. Additionally, the probability she would appear at trial was high because she was 18 years old, living with her parents in the same community for her entire life, her sister and brother also lived in the community, she did not have a prior criminal record and except for the current incident had led a law-abiding life, she was entering her senior year in high school and worked at a local bank, and if bail were reduced she would be able to complete her senior year in high school and perhaps be able to retain her job.
At a hearing on July 13, 2006, petitioner presented several witnesses in support of her assertion that she was neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. Additionally, she argued that the court could impose conditions on her release to ensure the community's safety and her appearance at future court dates. In opposing a reduction, the prosecutor argued that the charged offenses were especially serious, having resulted in the death of three people, that petitioner's conduct raised the concern that if released she might again drive recklessly, and that with regard to flight, he could not predict the future. Noting the seriousness of the charged offenses, which allegations were deemed true for the purpose of the bail application, the court refused to reduce bail. The court stated that it also considered â€
