P. v. Super. Ct.. 2/6/09 CA1/5

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2009 » P. v. Super. Ct.. 2/6/09 CA1/5

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A120430

Case Date: 04/17/2009

Preview:Filed 2/6/09 P. v. Superior Court CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent, MICHAEL NEVAIL PEARSON, Real Party in Interest. Penal Code section 1054.91 allows persons subject to a sentence of death or life in prison without the possibility of parole to file a motion for postconviction discovery to facilitate preparation of a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate judgment. Petitioner (the People, represented by the District Attorney of Contra Costa County) challenges the respondent superior courts discovery order, contending that section 1054.9 is an invalid amendment to the criminal discovery statutes enacted by Proposition 115 in 1990. We conclude section 1054.9 did not amend those statutes and affirm the superior courts order.2 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-951701-2) A120430

1 2

All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

This issue is pending before the California Supreme Court in Barnett v. Superior Court, review granted September 17, 2008, S165522. 1

BACKGROUND In 1996, real party in interest Michael Nevail Pearson was convicted of two murders in the first degree and sentenced to death. In 2007, Pearson, represented by the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, filed a motion for postconviction discovery under section 1054.9. The People opposed the request, arguing that section 1054.9 is an invalid amendment to the criminal discovery statutes enacted by Proposition 115. The superior court rejected the Peoples argument, and the People filed a petition for writ of mandate, which this court denied as premature. After the superior court issued a final order, the People filed a new petition for writ of mandate. This court issued an order to show cause on April 25, 2008. DISCUSSION On June 5, 1990, the voters adopted an initiative measure entitled the " ,,Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, " designated on the ballot as Proposition 115. (Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356, 363.) "Proposition 115 added both constitutional and statutory language authorizing reciprocal discovery in criminal cases. Section 30, subdivision (c), added to article I of the California Constitution . . . declares discovery to be ,,reciprocal in criminal cases. (,,In order to provide for fair and speedy trials, discovery in criminal cases shall be reciprocal in nature, as prescribed by the Legislature or by the People through the initiative process.) [

Download P. v. Super. Ct.. 2/6/09 CA1/5.pdf