Mejia v. Superior Court

Filed 6/30/06 Mejia v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, William L. Evans, Judge. Petition granted.

Deborah A. Kwast, Public Defender, Kevin J. Phillips, Assistant Public Defender, and Scott Van Camp, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

* * *

Mario Santiago Mejia is charged with one count of engaging in lewd acts with a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subdivision (a).)[1] He contends the trial court erred when it refused to grant his section 995 motion. The court denied the 995 motion after it took judicial notice under Evidence Code section 459 of the date a prior case against petitioner was dismissed in order to satisfy compliance with the statute of limitations. Because the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, the petition is granted.[2]

The resolution of this matter does not require a detailed recitation of facts of the underlying offense. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that during the hearing on the section 995 motion, the court took judicial notice under Evidence Code section 459 of the date the prior case against petitioner (People v. Mejia (Orange County Super. Ct. No. 94CF2404)), was dismissed. This date of dismissal had not previously been considered at the preliminary hearing by the magistrate.

As correctly noted by the petitioner, â€