Barlow v. Superior Court
Court have reached our decision after notice to all parties that Court might act by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) The entitlement to relief is obvious and has been conceded. Accordingly, let a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding respondent court to render a decision on the merits of the petition for writ of habeas corpus in A112887. Our decision is final as to this court immediately. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)James Toures Barlow petitions for a writ of mandate to compel respondent superior court to perform its duties pursuant to the March 29, 2006 order to show cause issued in A112887 by rendering a decision on the merits of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. On March 29, 2006, we issued an order stating that petitioner Barlow had made out a prima facie case for relief for juror misconduct and directed the Director of the Department of Corrections to show cause before the Solano County Superior Court why the judgment should not be vacated, citing In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 875-876, fn. 4. Our order also directed the Solano County Superior Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Timothy Curtis Rachal is the son of juror Bennie Rachal and, if so, whether the prosecution is able to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from her failure to disclose that relationship and Timothys criminal record on voir dire. Respondent court held the hearing, made the requested factual findings, but did not issue a decision.
Comments on Barlow v. Superior Court