Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition
Category > Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition
The Court of Appeal denied the prosecution’s writ petition with an opinion finding Prop 57 may be applied to cases that were direct filed in adult court before its passage. The prosecution argued in a writ petition that the trial court erred when it held that Prop 57 could be applied to cases that were directly filed against juvenile offenders in adult court before the new law took place. The Court of Appeal denied the petition by a written opinion on the merits that determined a cause and constitutes law of the case. The court resolved the issue on this manner because it was important and merited speedy resolution.id: 25159
Writ review was proper after an untimely 995 motion due to the voluminous record and the fact that counsel didn’t receive discovery for several weeks. The Attorney General argued the court should deny the defendant’s writ petition following the denial of a Penal Code section 995 motion because the original motion was not filed within 60 days of the arraignment which is a prerequisite for pretrial writ review under section 1510. However, the “no opportunity” and “unaware of the issues” exceptions to section 1510 applied in light of the voluminous grand jury record and the fact that defense counsel didn’t received the discovery for several weeks. id: 23973
Mandamus lies where there is a clear abuse of discretion and no alternative remedy.Although the use of mandamus is not limited by an unduly narrow and technical understanding of what constitutes a matter of jurisdiction, petitioners must demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion or conduct amounting to usurpation of [the judicial] power. To insure that mandamus remains an extraordinary remedy, petitioners must show that they lack adequate alternative means to obtain the relief they seek, and carry the burden of showing that [their] right to issuance of the writ is `clear and indisputable.' Here the petitioner met this exacting standard, in demonstrating that the district court was without authority to order him to represent indigent inmates in a civil case.id: 14803
Appellate division of the superior court erred by issuing a peremptory writ without notifying defendant or affording her an opportunity to respond.The city charged defendant with misdemeanor vehicle manslaughter. The city also named codefendant in the civil action brought by the family of the victim. The trial court granted defendant's motion to recuse the City Attorney from prosecuting the criminal case on grounds that the City Attorney's obligations as counsel for the codefendant in the civil case created a conflict. The People challenged the ruling by petition for writ of mandate filed in the appellate division of the superior court. The Court granted the writ without receiving or requesting opposition or issuing an order to show cause. This was erroneous. The appellate division exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a peremptory writ without previously notifying defendant of that possibility and affording her an opportunity to respond.id: 16351
Failure to file timely writ petition challenging the order to return property was fatal as the time limit provision is jurisdictional.The trial court granted the defendant's motion for return of property following forfeiture. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (h), the People have 30 days to file a writ petition seeking appellate review of the order. The time limit provision is jurisdictional. The People's petition filed 49 days after the order was untimely and the defect was fatal. The absence of a formal written order by the trial court did not leave jurisdiction with the court.id: 11593
A writ of mandate was not the proper vehicle to vacate the conviction because one superior court judge cannot vacate the judgment of another. Defendant filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate his conviction under People v. Rodriguez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1125, which held that a gang member acting alone cannot violate Penal Code section 186.22, subd.(a). The court found defendant was entitled to relief, but that a petition for a writ of mandate was an improper vehicle to vacate the conviction because that procedure compels action by an inferior court, and the superior court judge who was presented with the petition could not vacate the judgment that was imposed by another superior court judge.id: 26197
An opinion of innocence from the former prosecutor was not a new fact requiring the court to grant the petition for a writ of coram nobis.Defendant was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. He was held to answer following a preliminary hearing but the prosecutor dismissed the case for insufficient evidence before trial. Defendant’s later petition for a finding of factual innocence was denied, as was his appeal from that ruling. He later filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis based largely on the statement of the former prosecutor who said in a deposition in a related defamation case that defendant was innocent after noting unfairness in the process. However, the prosecutor’s statement was an opinion, not a new fact that would have prevented a conviction. The trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of coram nobis. id: 25415
he trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a section 1018 motion to withdraw a plea from 2007 so that defendant could take advantage of a 2014 statutory amendment to section 11352. In 2007, defendant pled no contest to transporting heroin. She later sought to vacate her felony conviction and replace it with a misdemeanor for simple possession, seeking a retroactive application of a 2014 amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11352 that required transportation for sale, rather than personal use. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1018 to withdraw her plea. However, the court indicated future relief might be available through a petition for a writ of coram nobis.id: 25222
Inmates seeking to compel the CDCR to process grievances should file a petition for writ of mandate.The proper way to compel the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to process inmate grievances is by writ of mandate, not a writ of habeas corpus.id: 24651
The trial court properly allowed pretrial psychiatric testing of defendant who suggested he would present evidence of brain impairment, but disclosure of the testing result s would be delayed until he had a chance to assert privilege. The capital murder defendant notified the prosecution of his intent to introduce evidence of neurocognitive deficits. The prosecution then moved successfully for an order compelling defendant to submit to examination from court-ordered mental health experts. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ permitting the examinations to proceed, but directing the trial court to delay disclosure of portions containing defendant’s statements. He must be given a chance to assert a claim of privilege against self-incrimination, with redaction of any material as to which the privilege claim is sustained, before disclosure to the prosecution. The court rejected defendant’s claim that disclosure must be deferred until defendant puts on mental state evidence at trial as the prosecution should have the chance to prepare its rebuttal case.id: 21569
The three judges who formed the superior court’s appellate division did not lack the authority to rule on the prosecution’s writ opposing defendant’s discovery request. The prosecution filed a writ petition challenging the magistrate’s order granting a request for discovery in support of a suppression motion. The panel of three superior court judges did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the writ petition even though that panel also served as the appellate division of that court.id: 22093
The trial court lacked the authority under section 1016.5, coram nobis, or as a matter of equity to grant the request to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea in a case that would result in his deportation.Defendant became a naturalized citizen on October 4th of 1989. That day he filed a form saying he had not committed any crimes since he filed his petition for citizenship. He later pled guilty to 10 counts of child molest including two incidents that occurred before his naturalization date. The trial court later erroneously granted his motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Whether defendant’s motion was construed as a motion for relief under Penal Code section 1016.5, a petition for writ of error coram nobis, or a motion requesting equitable relief based on the court’s inherent power to provide such relief, the defendant failed to cite any legal authority supporting the court’s order.id: 22393
People seeking Hofsheier relief who are out of custody and whose appeals are final must file a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court.For convicted defendants who are no longer in custody and whose appeals are final, claims for Hofsheier relief (People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185) - relief from mandatory lifetime sex offender registration based on equal protection - must be brought by way of a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court.id: 21472
Defendant seeking to vacate an earlier conviction prior to deportation based on the lack of adequate advisement regarding immigration consequences was ineligible for a writ of error coram nobis on the facts of his case.Defendant who was facing removal by federal immigration authorities because of an earlier conviction petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court seeking to vacate the underlying conviction. However, he was ineligible for a writ of error coram nobis because the petition was not diligently filed, defendant failed to avail himself of the adequate legal remedy of habeas corpus, and the petition was successive and raised piecemeal claims. Moreover, defendant failed to state a case for relief on the merits because he alleged no mistake of fact which, had it been known at the time of the plea, would have prevented rendition of judgment. The court refused to expand the boundaries of the writ of error coram nobis.id: 20848
Granting habeas relief was in excess of the trial court's authority absent evidence of custody and the judgment was reversed to allow defendant to amend his pleading to allege a petition for writ of mandate.The trial court granted the habeas petition discharging defendant's obligation to register as a sex offender. However, the petition was mislabeled and should have been filed as a petition for writ of mandate. However, to obtain that writ defendant must show the state has the duty to absolve him from the requirement. The matter was remanded to allow defendant an opportunity to amend his pleading to allege a petition for
writ of mandate and thereafter conduct appropriate proceedings.id: 19679
Writ of error coram nobis was properly denied where the prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement in arguing against parole and defendant's belief that the prosecutor would not argue against parole was not a mistake of fact.Defendant appealed from a order denying a writ of error coram nobis. In 1984, he entered into a plea bargain in which the charge of first degree murder would be reduced to second degree with a prison term of 15 years-to-life. After a finding that he was not suitable for parole he filed the present petition. He argued at the time of the plea he thought he would only serve 15 years and was unaware the prosecutor would argue against parole using the facts of the murder. However, defendant's mistake was one of law, not fact. Even if he claimed a mistake of fact (required for a writ of error coram nobis), the claim could be disbelieved by the trial court. The prosecutor did not breach the terms of the agreement and it is not likely defendant would have rejected the deal had he known he could spend more than 15 years in prison.id: 18522
Court erred in granting writ of error coram nobis since that procedure is reserved to correct factual errors and the present issue was legal in nature.The trial court granted the defendant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis and allowed the withdrawal of the guilty plea based on the failure to advise defendant of the potential consequences under the Sexually Violent Predator act before he pleaded guilty. However, the writ of coram nobis is used to address factual errors. The only contention raised involved the legal issue of whether the law requires a defendant be advised of the potential civil commitment proceedings under the SVPA. The trial court therefore erred in granting the writ of error coram nobis.id: 16352
Coram nobis was not available to a Rampart defendant who entered a guilty plea in 1993 and could not show the prosecution or the judge knew the state's key witness was committing perjury.Coram nobis will not issue to correct a judgment based upon perjured testimony unless the prosecuting authorities or the court knew or had reason to know about the perjury at the time it occurred. Noting the lack of any other remedy, defendant essentially argued the rule should be ignored because the case was tangentially related to the Rampart scandal. The court refused to ignore the rule.id: 15124
Writ of mandate is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge.Defendant brought a peremptory challenge motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 to disqualify her trial judge. The motion was denied as untimely. Defendant proceeded to trial and did not challenge the denial by writ of mandate under section 170.3(d). On appeal, defendant attempted to challenge the denial of her motion. However, section 170.3(d) prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge motion.id: 12165
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245