Filed 11/1/18 Marcus S. v. Superior Court CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

BY THE COURT[1]:

In accordance with our prior notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177–180.) Petitioners’ right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236–1237, 1240–1241; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240–1244.) In our order requesting briefing, we provided Palma notice. Real party’s opposition brief concedes that statutory time limits for the minor’s detention have been exceeded. Under these circumstances, we reject real parties’ suggestion that we remand this matter to permit respondent to reconsider the minor’s release, dismissal of the petition, or any other remedy consistent with statutory principles.

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to set aside and vacate its orders of October 17, 2018, and October 25, 2018, denying petitioner’s motions to be released and dismiss the underlying case, and to enter a new and different order directing the minor’s immediate release from custody in the juvenile hall and dismissing without prejudice the delinquency petition bearing Juvenile Court Case Number 18JW0802, filed October 3, 2018.

In the interests of justice and to prevent further delays, this decision shall be final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The remittitur will issue immediately upon the finality of this opinion as to this court, should the parties so stipulate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.272(c)(1) and 8.490(d).)