Filed 2/24/22 Petty v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Jacqueline C. Jackson, Judge. Petition granted.

William Joel Petty, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Michael Hestrin, District Attorney, and John F. Pomeroy, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner William Joel Petty seeks a writ of mandate compelling the superior court to grant his motion for postconviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9.[1] Having reviewed all of the filings in this matter, we conclude the superior court assessed Petty’s motion under the wrong statute. We therefore direct the superior court to vacate its order denying Petty’s motion and remand the matter for the court to reconsider the motion under section 1054.9. We express no opinion on the merits of the motion.

FACTS

Petty, who represented himself at trial, is serving a sentence in excess of 25 years to life for robbing a restaurant. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, and in conjunction with the petition, filed a motion for postconviction discovery under section 1054.9. The superior court denied both the habeas petition and the discovery motion. The order denying the motion stated: “Penal Code Section 1054 is a Criminal Trial Discovery Statute. Petitioner does not have a criminal trial pending and this section does not apply to his writ.”

DISCUSSION

A petition for writ of mandate is an appropriate means for challenging the denial of a postconviction discovery motion under section 1054.9. (In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692.) An appellate court “generally review[s] a trial court’s ruling on matters regarding discovery under an abuse of discretion standard.” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299.) The trial court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard. (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.)

Here, the trial court assessed Petty’s motion under section 1054 instead of section 1054.9. Section 1054.9 expressly authorizes a criminal defendant, like Petty, who was convicted of a serious or violent felony resulting in a sentence of 15 years or more to obtain postconviction discovery if he is pursuing a habeas petition and has made a good faith effort to obtain the discovery materials from trial counsel. (§ 1054.9, subd. (a).) Discovery materials under the statute are limited to materials the defendant would have been entitled to at time of trial that are currently in the possession of the prosecution or law enforcement. (§ 1054.9, subd. (c).)

Given the clear error involved, we requested an opposition and advised the parties we may grant a peremptory writ in the first instance under Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178. The People filed a response. They agree reversal of the court’s order is an appropriate remedy. Issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is appropriate “ ‘ “when petitioner’s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue—for example, when such entitlement is conceded or when there has been clear error under well-settled principles of law and undisputed facts . . . .” [Citation.]’ ” (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1241.) Here there was both clear error and the People agree reversal is an appropriate remedy.

We decline to address the People’s further contentions that informal discovery should precede any court-ordered enforcement of Petty’s right to discovery and that the proper forum for resolving the discovery requests is before the judge who heard Petty’s underlying criminal case. The People are free to raise these issues with the superior court on remand.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its September 24, 2021, and September 29, 2021 orders denying Petty’s motion for postconviction discovery and to reconsider the motion under section 1054.9.

Petty 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.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

SLOUGH

J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.